During one of the panels I sat on at Yearly Kos (which you can watch on C-SPAN here in full or here in a shorter version), I talked about the importance of Democrats not being forced into a cowering position over national security as a result of attacks from the right. As an example, I pointed to an ad then-Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson ran against her Democratic challenger, Chris Murphy, alleging that as a result of Murphy's support for the rule of law America could be put in jeopardy. The whole thing took the look of the television show 24. Take a look:

As I noted on the panel, the ad was often cited by the media as one of the most effective spots of the cycle, one that would no doubt help the GOP incumbent. But in the end Johnson got demolished in her reelection bid, falling by a whopping 12-point margin. Matt Stoller, writing about this same ad, points to Chris Cillizza, who said about the ad (which he called one of the ten best campaign commercials of the cycle), "Interestingly, though this ad was cited as one of the cycle's best by numerous operatives of both partisan stripes, one GOP strategist noted that Johnson's numbers actually went down after the spot aired -- a sign that while it may have looked and sounded good it may well have not been all that effective in moving votes" (emphasis added). Frankly, I don't think it's the case that this add wasn't "all that effective in moving votes." Rather, I think it actually might have been remarkably effective -- in moving votes the other way, particularly because Murphy didn't buy the headfake and back down.

Today we're seeing a similar sort of headfake, directly from Karl Rove himself. The Politico's Mike Allen writes up his exit interview with Rove as follows:

A day after announcing he will leave government Aug. 31, an unrepentant Karl Rove said Tuesday that Democrats are headed toward repeating Vietnam-era mistakes that gave Republicans the upper hand on national defense for 30 years.

"The Democrats have a problem with national security," the White House senior adviser said. "Too many Democratic leaders are opposing policies that will lead to America's success in the Middle East."

In an hour-long one-on-one interview near the Crawford White House, Rove said congressional efforts to oppose President Bush's "surge" strategy have clear echoes of Democrats in the early 1970s who cut off support for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, a war that was even more unpopular than Iraq. In Rove's view, the nation wound up with its prestige diminished and its adversaries emboldened.

"The Democrats have suffered since," he said. "To the degree that the current circumstance has caused people to say, `Wait a minute. Are we seeing a rerun? And I don't like how it ends,' they could face the same problem."

On the most shallow of levels, there's reason for Democrats to pay heed to Rove's concern trolling. Indeed, George McGovern did lose by a wide margin in 1972. But even taking a couple of moments to think about this reading of history, it becomes clear that it is completely incorrect. After all, the Democrats remained in control of the House by an extremely large margin for the 10 Congresses following the fall of Saigon and in control of the Senate for seven of those Congresses -- not exactly a bad showing for a party supposedly without the trust of the American people on national security. What's more, McGovern lost for reasons that, while including Vietnam were not by any means limited to Vietnam.

But a debate about a revisionist reading of American history is slightly beyond the purview of this post. Instead, I want to put down a few more words about how Karl Rove works and how we can ensure that he is not successful in his waning moments in the White House.

In order for Rove's strategy to work (and it has worked numerous times in the past), the Republicans throw down the gauntlet, the Democrats back down and the Republicans end up winning. This was the case with the creation of the Homeland Security department, it was the case with Iraq and it has been the case in any number of other instances. I say "was the case with Iraq" because the Democrats began to break the mold during the 2006 cycle by finally standing up to White House attacks, not only holding their position but in fact pushing back. In this situation, Rove's strategy completely backfired because of the inherent weakness of his position (which would have nevertheless seemed strong in comparison had the Democrats backed down).

Rove's position on Iraq, and that of the President and his Republican allies, is even weaker than it was in 2006. Thus the only way he and they can make it a winning position is if they somehow manage to trick the Democrats into backing down. The concern trolling evident in this interview with The Politico is a prime example of this tactic, trying to scare the Democrats into withdrawing from their position.

Unfortunately there is a feeling among some within our ranks that we should pay heed to Rove's warnings. Come September, when the Bush administration rolls out an excessively rosy report on Iraq penned by the political staff in the White House rather than the military commanders in Iraq, there might be some on this side of the aisle who will feel a pull towards relenting. This cannot and must not happen, because it is the only way -- the only way -- Rove and the GOP are able to turn Iraq from being a liability into a strength.

So Democrats, please -- please -- do not fall for Karl Rove's final headfake.