Pat Buchanan said it best on the McLaughlin Group when they were discussing the Gaza pullout and how US taxpayers are basically paying the settlers to leave instead of Israel.  Joe asked the roundtable if the US gov't would pay.  Pat's response, "We'll roll over every time."

Really something kinda fucked up when I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan of all people.  

Crazy world we live in.

Oh, so no, no Democrat would criticize the Iraq war unless they don't care about losing AIPAC support.

Big business drives parties now, not people. Big business cares about other things than Iraq because all the contracts have been awarded. Anyone see anything about Hurricane katrina. Pork. K street.

The end point of this ride comes back to yourself, and what you can do for others. To your faith.

When Reps seize the initiative, the Dems will be left sputtering that they really supported withdrawal all along but were afraid to say it. That won't look good on a bumper sticker.

Not having a clear position at this point leaves Democrats in a better position in 06 politically.  First, what ever position we take now will not mean anything for policy anyway. Second, it leaves open the possibility to attack the Republicans from the right when things really go off the rails next year.  In addition by not commenting now Bush owns it.  At this point the only comment should be that this is Bush's creation and so are all of the negative consequences.

Democrats should choose the line of attack in August of 06 not now.  

Look, everything on the "agenda" is "fine," we do need to spend more on high technology and science, have a renewable energy policy, etc etc, but all this sounds like it is targeted to well off suburbanites from Oregon.

Put another way, what is in these proposals that will really rally people to our side?  Somehow I just dont see the great mass of humanity rallying around the political pledge to "create an institute of science and technology"  or "get a summit on the budget." What in this package is going to appeal to a person making 35k a year and has some health care?  Or a person living in poverty that is on medicaid?

Wages have been stuck on a 24 year pause and we have nothing to say about that?

Health Care costs are going through the roof, much more of a problem to average americans then total lack of coverage, and we have nothing to say about that?

Unregulated free trade is draining the economy dry and we have nothing to say about fair trade?

The conscience of the whole country has been pricked regarding poverty and the underclass, and we have nothing to say about that?

Folks, we are going to "win" on 2006 even with this message.  Bush has messed things up so bad that we are going to win seats almost no matter what we do.  But the level of the win is at stake.  The difference between picking up a few seats and getting control of Congress is at stake. Most importantly, the ideological makeup of the American people is at stake.  Bush's profound mismanagement has opened the door for a complete realignment, BUT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN IF WE RUN AS A PARTY TERRIFIED OF ITS OWN BELIEFS, TERRIFIED OF TAKING ANY STANDS ON ANY ISSUES, AND TERRIFIED OF TAKING THE PROPER STEPS TO INSURE OUR DEFENSE (WHICH IS WHAT WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ IS).

The Republicans eternal advantage is that they are led by politicians with guts that are better at their job then the movement that they lead deserves and our eternal disadvantage is that we are led by scared children who are worse politically then what we deserve.

I went to the House Web site today to do some research, and discovered an interesting deal--the Majority Leader is still identified as DeLay.

Hmmmmm. Hubris anyone, sure pissed me off. Wrote about it:

...If DeLay was starring in a movie they'd call him Jason Kruger-Lechter. You can't beat this guy with a hammer. He's other worldly. He's the face that comes around when Linda Blair's head does the 360 in the Exorcist. He is the energy that keeps hair and fingernails growing after we die. As the great 20th Century philosopher Mojo Nixon might say, "DeLay is the anti-Elvis."

"Second Verse, Same as the First"

Yes, I agree that Iraq needs to be showcased, or at least not buried.  But let's also start investigating the Bush environmental "record."  More arsenic in drinking water, gutted clean air act, in the process of gutting endangered species and critical habitat protection, etc.  Mainstream Republicans care about this stuff and, with anger about Iraq and softening support to Bush, this can help convince them we are better.

By the way, more info on critical habitat myths and facts from Center for Biological Diversity here:  
http://www.sw-center.org/swcbd/species/dragon/ESA-Myths.pdf
Only two pages.  This is in response to bull that the Rs have been spreading to help push through the House revision of ESA.

When McGovern ran in 1972, the vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Vietnam.  McGovern ran on that platform.  Democratic activists forced the party nominee to take the position.  And after all, it's what most Americans wanted.

As a result, for the last 30 years Democrats have been viewed as "weak on defense."

How can Democrats call for pulling out without being branded as weak?  Even Clark wouldn't be insulated from that.  Remember, McGovern was a decorated fighter pilot from WW II.

Here's the relevant part of the transcript:

REP. EMANUEL:  ...the American people have rejected the same policies that are giving us the same results and the status quo.  They want change.  They want big ideas, big reform.  This is going to be a big election, a national election because of the challenges this country faces.  We can do better than the policies that got us into the position we have right now.  And the fact is, the Democrats have an obligation to lay out to the country what those ideas are.

MR. RUSSERT:  So, for example, should we withdraw troops from Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL:  Well, I--let me--let's take what the general just said.  Let's deal with that.

[...]

On Iraq, we have a false choice between stay the course and get the same results and just pull up.  I think Senator Levin laid out a very good agenda, which is we're going to have measurements.  You can't say after two and a half years, like you asked the general before, two and a half years, nearly $400 billion, and we have one Iraqi battalion?  We're going to set standards every way and measurements from the political process, economic process and also on the military and national security where Iraq has to stand up.

MR. RUSSERT:  OK.  So--so...

REP. EMANUEL:  Let me go over--let's go...

MR. RUSSERT:  No, no, wait.  So if the Iraqis do not stand up, if there are not 10 battalions, 15 battalions in place, we withdraw?

REP. EMANUEL:  See, Tim, that's the wrong question, in my view.

MR. RUSSERT:  Well...

REP. EMANUEL:  I'll tell you why, because when we...

MR. RUSSERT:  But it's the question I asked.

REP. EMANUEL:  But the Congress has an obligation to hold a standard.  We have given the president a blank check.  It's been a rubber-stamp Congress that sent troops in there without Kevlar vests, without Humvees.  We have to have a standard in which Iraq and the administration measure up over the two years, and at that point we'll evaluate where we are.

MR. RUSSERT:  So was it a mistake for Democrats in the Senate and House to vote to authorize the war?

REP. EMANUEL:  Given the information that we were given them, they made their decision.  What has been a mistake is to let this type of administration basically run a policy of incompetence when it comes to Iraq.

You can agree or disagree with his statements, but he did talk about it.  I agree that the press usually regards Iraq with a false choice, "stay the course" or "leave now."  There are other options.  I don't know that Emanuel's plan amounts to much, but I give him points for eviscerating that false choice.  Democrats need to stop playing the media's games.  I wish, when Russert asked about "was it a mistake for Senate Dems to authorize," that he said "Who gives a fuck?" (maybe not with that language)  "We're losing in Iraq.  Our troops don't have the armor they need, we've fomented a civil war.  The war strategy as laid out by the Pentagon is not working.  You want to blame that on Democrats for the sake of balance?"

We're locked into a bogged down problem, not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have...'Stay the course' is not a policy...I think by any standard when you analyze two and a half years in Iraq where we have put in over a third of a trillion dollars, where we have lost almost 1,900 Americans, over 14,000 wounded, electricity production down, oil production down -- any measurement, any standard you apply to this, we're not winning. [the Bush administration] did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated many in Congress, most of the Congress, like a nuisance. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq....We keep putting our forces who are over there in these impossible situations, asking them to do these impossible things when there's not enough force structure over there and there was never enough force structure... It's an absolute joke to say that we have a coalition of the willing... I watched 58,000 Americans get chewed up over a process of 1961 to 1975...during a time when in fact we had a policy that was losing. And the members of Congress were interestingly silent and absent in asking tough questions. As long as I'm a United States senator, I will do everything I can to ensure that we have a policy worthy of these brave young men and women who are sacrificing their lives and doing the things that they do for this country. I don't think that policy is there today.

How about mentioning terrorism?  It's on most voters minds but the Democratic Party hierarchy continuously chooses not to raise the issue.  No wonder voters assume that Democrats might not be able to take of the issue.  What are the Democrats afraid of?  Bush & Co. only real claim of success is no more terrorist incidents on our soil.  Democrats will once again lost fail to gain the majority if they fail to mention Iraq AND terrorism.

I have recently seen a possible 2008 Democratic candidate.  He did not speak about terrorism.  He mentioned Iraq briefly.  With so-called party leader of this type no wonder folks like Emanuel fail to raise the issues.  

People are living longer, and are healthy enough to stay in the work force longer. As it is we're getting pretty close to the point where the average person will spend half or his or her life out of the workforce. That's not a sustainable way to run a country.

Remember, we play tohe political game to take power, but the end goal is enacting good policy that will help America, nto doing whatever will keep us in power. There is no crisis in social security now. Let's not create one.

What's more, it's true, and it's good public policy. A free college education for everyone will help keep our economy competative in the 21st century.

So for the most part, yeah, it needs some work. But the college thing is a step in the right direction.

The Democratic Party supports a strategy to stabilize, which would be success, and then leave.  The left supports a strategy to say we're going to leave now, preferably in failure, but then stick around and stabilize on the sly.  

In any event, the Democratic Party has a strategy on Iraq and it is the strategy that most Americans support.  The left just doesn't want to hear it, and worse, doesn't seem capable of recognizing it's the exact same plan they have.

"We backed Bush on the war because like most other Americans after 9/11, we trusted that our president to do the right thing.  But now, after years of a bloody war in which tens of thousands have died and which was fought over a lie, the time has come to admit that Bush was wrong and to set to work to end this terrible mistake."

seriously, I mean, why bother sending email if you don't wan't responses?

I know there's other ways to get in touch but between the DCCC and the rest, all pestering me for money in that same format, it's getting tiring.

and yet, if you raise Iraq, you're "bad" for the party's prospects (oops I mean DC establishment congressmen who will toe the line with Bush in 2007) in 2006

But in this case, if the Democrats like Rahm aren't saying much about Iraq, its probably because they have nothing to say. Consistently whining about the situation has not improved our standing. Americans simply don't look at our talk as strengthing our position in Iraq. They see us as critcizing the troops, not the President. Right or wrong, this is the way it is. Thats why I would take not use the "withdrawal" nomenclature as much as I would use the "redeployment" nomenclature. We need to finish Iraq sooner rather than later so we can redeploy our troops to better positions in the War on Terror.

Sure, some of that talk is just symbolic. And I heard someone comment that this is just a way for the Liberal Hawks to justify the war, but so what? We need a resolution sooner rather than later and we're not going to get everyone who voted for the war to apologize. So deal with it. Yes, move on. And lets move forward quickly to get our troops out of this untenable situation and get Iraq into something of a best case scenario at this point, even if its not ideal.