With the President’s poll numbers on the decline, a White House staff shake-up, Rumsfeld’s role as the architect of the Iraq war under fire, and the nation split on the future of the war, our congressional leaders, presidential hopefuls and their advisors are asking that all-important question: what does this mean for me?
Some likely 2008 presidential wannabes are performing a delicate two-step, trying to exude determination and foresight, while at the same time not putting all their eggs in a failing basket. Poster boy for the pitfalls of flip-flopping, Sen. Kerry used the anniversary of his own dissent against the Vietnam War to come out, in a speech at Faneuil Hall and an op-ed in the Boston Globe, on the side of dissent. His carefully worded op-ed allows him to ride the wave of general dissatisfaction with the president and the war and frame dissent as patriotism, while not offering any sort of plan for the war itself (a plan that could get him in trouble later). From the op-ed,
Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself. It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation. Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn't working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic….
…The Swift Boat-style attacks that have been aimed at dissenters from Gold Star mothers to decorated veterans like Jack Murtha hurt our democracy even more than they wound their target.
On the other side, critics are wondering if John McCain’s unwavering support for the war could be a political liability (it "looms as a barrier" says Bloomberg.com's Cassandra-esqe headline). Comparing him to Kerry, his advisors are trying to frame that support as a testament to his "genuine" and "straight-shooting" approach to politics. From the recent Bloomberg article:
With only 38 percent of Americans in the Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll saying the war is worth fighting, McCain's advisers are trying to make a virtue of his stance, saying it shows he is genuine, courageous and un-political. When 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ``attempted to be `adroit' about the war, the public didn't like it,'' said John Weaver, McCain's chief political strategist. ``McCain is a straight shooter.''
The Bloomberg article also raises questions about the paradox of his support for the costly war and his stance as a fiscal conservative:
As he travels around the country, in almost every speech he criticizes Congress for appropriating $233 million for a ``bridge to nowhere'' in Alaska and ``$3 million to study bear DNA in Montana.'' Yet he ever mentions the more than $250 billion the Iraq war has cost U.S. taxpayers so far.
But this doesn't compare to our current Congressional incumbents for whom, as Glenn Frey might sing, the heat is on. Public disillusionment with Congress is at 1994 levels according to a Pew Research Report. The survey
finds that the Democrats maintain a large advantage in voting intentions for the fall. The Democrats' current 10-point lead is little changed from February (50%-41%), but there has been only a handful of occasions since 1994 when either party has held such a sizable advantage in the congressional horse race.
A Washington Post article earlier this month put the spotlight on Connecticut representative Christopher Shays, who
For nearly 20 years…has distinguished himself as a reliably moderate House Republican… Not so with Iraq, the "sentinel issue of our time," as Shays describes it. He has strayed deep into loyalist GOP territory, and that could cost him his job.
Shays is representative of many other Republican candidates who are worried about the way the current mood about the war is going to affect their campaigns.
Dozens of Republican incumbents in the House and Senate are feeling voter wrath over Iraq. "Whenever you're at war and you've got 135,000 of our young men and women overseas, it is unsettling to Americans," House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) conceded to reporters recently. "I think we understand that." Even Bush granted at a recent news conference that the conflict had stirred "a certain unease as you head into an election year."
Shays’ opponent, democrat Diane Farrell is playing it careful – critical, but not sticking her neck out far, per the Post:
Farrell calls the war "an utter disaster" but sidestepped a question on whether she would have voted, along with Shays and many Democrats, to authorize the Iraq invasion. "I would have demanded more information," she said.
Despite the polls giving them an edge, the Democrats have not been able to articulate a cohesive platform on a variety of issues, including Iraq. A Post article from today on the weekend’s DNC strategy meetings in New Orleans raises questions about the party’s ability to come up with a real alternative strategy to the Administration’s plans for the war. Per the Post,
In his speech Saturday, [Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard] Dean sought to outline the elements of a Democratic message, adapted from what congressional Democrats have been assembling in recent months…
…But Dean's litany falls short of what other Democrats see as a comprehensive alternative to Republican governance, and while many of them believe there is still time to produce something for public consumption before the November election, there is not overwhelming confidence that the party can do it. On Iraq, there is a sharp divide over whether to embrace or eschew timetables for withdrawing troops.
The horse race is a blast, but I wish the Democrats would stop tap-dancing around the polls and give us something, anything...a viable alternative that takes the debate out of the finger-pointing and speculation game. Our troops are sitting over there, an insurgency is at their doorstep, Bush's sights are set on Iran....what is it going to take to get the party out of the slumps?
