People Vote on Election Day

What Rosenfeld said, with emphasis added:

If you don't have the votes for a withdrawal timeline you don't have the votes, but the lipstick-on-a-pig rationalizations we're hearing from some Democrats (see the excerpts from Stoller) are truly crazy. To be blunt, even if the political calculations offered in defense of voting for the bill were correct (and that's dubious), it's not even an election year. Democrats are discussing all the mean things Republicans might say about them "during the upcoming recess week" as if voters go to the polls on Memorial Day -- and as if the GOP and the president were in the shape they were in, say, five years ago. The instinctiveness of the crouched, defensive posture you see from some of these folks is just sorry (and a contrast with the real sense of momentum that had been notable this year up until now).

This, to me, has been one of the most baffling things about the Democratic Party's tactical posture on Iraq ever since early 2003. You see politicians talking and acting as if the crucial thing is whether or not what they're doing will look popular over the next 36 hours. The important thing, of course, is how things look on election day. As Sam says, if the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there, but the important point is that liberals who take the position today that there should be a withdrawal timeline will be fully vindicated by November 2008 just as people who avoided the temptation to pander when Saddam Hussen was captured back in late '03 looked pretty smart by November '04.

If the way the nose-counting works out is that a supplemental passes with GOP votes plus a tiny rump of conservative Democrats, then so be it. But if you favor withdrawal on the merits, then you've got to believe that taking the stand now will look prescient in twelve months. Meanwhile, all the polls indicate that the voters agree with liberals about the issue at hand.

Comments

To be fair to the mainstream Dems in Congress, they aren't in the shape they were last year, when they were the insurgents on the Hill and nothing was expected of them. Now they're the occupation, and Congress's approval rating is lower than President Bush's.

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 3:01 PM

Isn't the talking point that Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush getting a little old by now? It's disingenuous on so many levels.

Posted by Steve | May 24, 2007 3:05 PM

This is more conspiracy-minded than I usually get, but do you think the Democratic leadership wants Iraq to be a burning issue come 2008, and didn't push hard enough on withdrawal for that reason?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2007 3:09 PM

Dems don't want to withdraw. This is the most piss-poor excuse ever. I don't know what all this excuse-making is about since it is so lame and transparent, but one thing I think is evident is that democrats - at least the party leaders - don't want to leave Iraq. We have interests there in the middle east, and now that we're there, no one wants to leave. god forbid something happen to those oil fields or whatever if we do draw down troops.

There's a difference between dems and repubs to be sure, but colonialism and imperialism and other areas of manifest destiny aren't where those differences are at.

Posted by A different matt | May 24, 2007 3:09 PM

"But if you favor withdrawal on the merits, then you've got to believe that taking the stand now will look prescient in twelve months."

This seems to assume that there are objective, non-contraversial measures for "the merits", which you and the public agree about. At the very least, to appear precient you have to be rather explicit about what you're predicting. And, finally, you tend not to get many points for precience if you appear to be responsible for your predictions coming true.

For instance, "We should get out of Iraq because there will be a genocide next year, and we don't want to be involved in it." doesn't get you much credit, if the genocide is seen as a result of getting out. That's more of a self-fulfiling prediction than precience.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 24, 2007 3:28 PM

"Isn't the talking point that Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush getting a little old by now?"

Not to me. I think the first time I heard that fact was only about a week ago.

"It's disingenuous on so many levels."

Could you explicate how it's disingenuous on one or two of those levels? I'm just curious.

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 3:29 PM

The low poll ratings could be because the somewhat inattentive American People see that Congress is still not taking concrete steps to get us out of Iraq, and figure the body must still be run by Republicans.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | May 24, 2007 3:35 PM

Fred: It's disingenuous because, first, Congress always polls low: look here, for instance: http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

So the latest poll doesn't represent a crisis of confidence in Congress, or a win for Bush. Presidents do sometimes poll well. Bush hasn't, persistantly, for, what, a year or more?

Second, as you can also see from the list linked above, it's not like 29% is the definitive word on Congress' job approval ratings -- it's a low outlier, even among very recent polls.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | May 24, 2007 3:35 PM

The more I think about it, the less I see political advantages to Democrats from withdrawing.

If bad things happen post-withdrawal, you get blamed for them. On the other hand, if bad things continue to happen in Iraq (as they certainly will) Bush gets blamed for them. I can see Reid and Schumer sitting up there and thinking, "How can we have the 2006 election again in 2008?" Answer: stay in Iraq, and make sure Bush gets the blame.

I'm not especially used to thinking of Congressional Democrats as brutal, cold-hearted SOBs when it comes to political strategy, so this whole picture seems really odd. But if I'm a Republican who's up for re-election in 2008, I'm not happy with the way things just went.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2007 3:46 PM

The poll you cite does not support your point. What it says is that approximately 70% of the polled support funding with benchmarks, as opposed to funding without benchmarks or no funding at all. It doesn't say what they think Democrats should do if Bush refuses to accept benchmarks.

The polls consistently have said that the people want the troops funded no matter what. For instance:

CBS/New York Times poll from April 20-24

If George W. Bush does veto [The Iraq Accountability bill], what should the Democrats in Congress do next: should they try to withhold funding for the war until George W. Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"

Withhold funding - 36%
Allow funding - 56%

The Democrats correctly perceive that this is not a battle they will win and have wisely punted.

The issue here is not whether to require a timeline - the Democrats have consistently said that they want such a thing. The issue is whether they should withhold funding unless Bush agrees to a timeline, a separate issue.

Posted by blah | May 24, 2007 4:09 PM

I'm not especially used to thinking of Congressional Democrats as brutal, cold-hearted SOBs when it comes to political strategy, so this whole picture seems really odd.

I don't think all the Democrats are meeting in a smoky room and saying "dude, let's conspire to keep the war going, we'll totally crush!" Then again, maybe this is actually happening.

I think it's moreso the case that Democrats believe the status quo is good for them politically, which it probably is, and so they don't feel a lot of pressure to change the status quo. This is pretty much the perspective of the consultants (who care almost exclusively about the horse race as opposed to the policy merits) and the Dems are forever listening to their consultants as if they know something.

But it would be too much to speculate that the Dems are intentionally coming up 1 vote short on ending the war or whatever just so they can have a campaign issue for 2008. It doesn't happen in quite that concerted a fashion.

Posted by Steve | May 24, 2007 4:12 PM

"Could you explicate how it's disingenuous on one or two of those levels? I'm just curious."

Congress is unpopular because it is not getting legislation passed. Legislation is not getting passed because the Republican Senate is blocking it and then turning around and have the message be "Pelosi is ineffective"

Typical of the shoddy but relatively effective tactics of Republicans in opposition.

Posted by Bruce Webb | May 24, 2007 4:38 PM

If the Dems are just putting up this bill because they can't win with a "good" one, then they should just throw it out there and have all the leadership call it the turd it is. It'll still be voted for by the GOP & Dem hawks, but at least the rest of them will maintain more credibility than they are by ginning it up like it's carving out a reasonable middle-ground

Or better, pass funding for a month and then come back and argue again - lose again and pass funding for another month. Tell the American people you don't have the votes to force your way but you'll do your absolute best to get the votes as soon as you can. Hammer that home over and over and over again. Spend some political capital on the issue - grow a god damn spine

Posted by crayz | May 24, 2007 4:41 PM

blah, you might notice that Bush's polling has had absolutely no effect on moving the Republicans one way or another - and that they are being rewarded for that stubbornness with the Dem cave in.

The real question should be: do you want the war funded responsibly? Do you want real standards that enforce that responsibility?

If the Dems are going to respond in a knock kneed way to doing not only the right thing, but the thing that will pay off in, uh, outside the beltway reality, then what the hell good are they? It is pretty simple: fund the successful end of this war. And don't let your policies be dictated by one damn poll in the NYT. Let your policies instead dictate the language you use to explain it. That's not a hard thing to do. It is an easy thing to do. Playing it safe, and accidentally making it appear that President Bush is strong, and the Democrats are weak, is designed to make the Democrats crash. Following the crash, of course, we will get the Truman democrat line - we must be strong (and emptyheaded) on defense.

That is nutty. No poll will change the surge into a winning policy. Spend the money to bring the war to a conclusion. Attach the money to conditions so that it isn't spent incompetently or randomly or for ambiguous purposes. This is so easy to argue for even Reid could do it.

Posted by roger | May 24, 2007 4:44 PM

The best outcome for Democrats is exactly the scenario Matt outlined, a narrow victory for funding based on a combination of party line Republicans with Blue Dogs.

But Democrats should be whipping pretty hard for "No" votes with the ultimate message being "Of course the troops will get funding in the end, that was never in question, we voted "No" because of the lack of deadlines"

That is Democrats as a party are voting against endless war, Republicans as a party for war without end. But it doesn't work if we get defections on the same order as we did with War Authorization.

So, Whip 'em Nancy. Whip 'em good.

Posted by Bruce Webb | May 24, 2007 4:45 PM

Bruce Webb writes, "The best outcome for Democrats is exactly the scenario Matt outlined, a narrow victory for funding based on a combination of party line Republicans with Blue Dogs."

No, the best outcome for everyone -- everyone! -- is to end this disaster and get the hell out of Iraq. It's good for Democrats because even the speediest of withdrawals won't get the troops out of Iraq early enough to prevent them from being an albatross around the Republicans' neck in 2008. It's good for Democrats because the war is ruinously expensive, and the longer it lasts, the less money they have to play around with for their domestic agenda. It's good for Democrats because that was the job they were elected to do, and when they don't do it, the voters are going to start wondering why the hell they elected the Democrats.

And, just as a side point, it's good for everyone because we're wasting the lives of thousands of US citizens, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and trillions of dollars, to no fucking good end whatsoever.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | May 24, 2007 4:57 PM

You see politicians talking and acting as if the crucial thing is whether or not what they're doing will look popular over the next 36 hours. The important thing, of course, is how things look on election day.

I sympathise with that perspective.

But the myth-making for 2008, the zombie lies and other bullshit, the dubious citations for 30-second campaign ads? That's already begun.

The Democrats can be honest and say that, short of impeaching Bush and Cheney, there'll still be 100,000 troops in Iraq in January 2009, but they'll do their damndest to ensure that that's done solely through Bush's veto Sharpie and the craven support of the GOP.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2007 5:09 PM

if the genocide is seen as a result of getting out.

Actually, in such a circumstance the blame would properly go to the clowns who decided to install an Islamist non-state in Iraq in the first place and the idiots who continue to apologize for them (and that goes triple for libertarians who, suddenly discovering that states have the omnipotent ability to build a full set of social institutions from the ground up even as the result of a quarter-assed plan designed by incompetents).

Posted by Scott Lemieux | May 24, 2007 6:02 PM

..., fall into the second category) that should finish.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | May 24, 2007 6:04 PM

"Actually, in such a circumstance the blame would properly go to"

We could argue about that, but blame doesn't always go where it "properly" goes, and I was explaining why thinking that withdrawl is the right move on the merits doesn't automatically mean you'd think it was politically smart. You don't get any points for being "precient" if people percieve your "precience" as nothing more than a self fulfilling prophesy, and that's the case whether or not that perception is, based on some argument, incorrect.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 24, 2007 6:18 PM

Bush is not going to pull the troops out of Iraq if a supplemental appropriation isn't passed-he will simply make some bullshit claim about his constitutional powers and continue the war.

None of you people accusing congressional Democrats of political cowardice have discussed what happens next.

Do we have 5 votes in the Supreme Court to win a test case? Do we have 67 votes in the Senate to remove Bush and Cheney?

We ought not to be provoking a constitutional crisis unless we are reasonably certain of winning it. The point of this exercise, after all, is to end the war, so it would be foolish to adopt a course that stresses our system of constitutional government, and does not end the war

Posted by rea | May 24, 2007 7:08 PM

We ought not to be provoking a constitutional crisis unless we are reasonably certain of winning it.

This is surely not the actual motivation of the Democrats who oppose defunding the war, although I suppose it's a mildly interesting idea to kick around. A constitutional crisis would ultimately be won in the court of public opinion, though; if you're really convinced that Bush will gladly ignore Congress, ignore the Supreme Court, ignore anyone that disagrees with him, that's an easy excuse for refusing to take any action whatsoever.

As Justice Jackson said, the President's powers are at their lowest ebb when Congress explicitly disagrees with him. But they need to actually take that stand; they can't simply say "well, the President intends to disagree with us no matter what we do, so we're not going to bother."

Posted by Steve | May 24, 2007 7:20 PM

I agree to a point with Rea, though I'll phrase it slightly differently. The point is, one way or another (whether with deadlines, troop readiness guidelines, etc.) US soldiers are going to be funded. There is simply no seriously considerable sequence of events in Congress where the troops aren't funded in some form; the preferable alternative -- i.e. passing a bill that funds the troops but demands they be withdrawn -- cannot pass (as we saw earlier this year) because there are insufficient votes to override the eventual veto.
The key point here is that, however much Americans dislike the war, they absolutely do not dislike the individual men and women in the US armed forces. I don't know that Democratic politicians (as some are suggesting) like the status quo in the sense that the war in Iraq boosts Democratic chances in '08. Rather, I think Democratic politicians like the status quo in the sense that more and more Republicans are being forced to oppose the war. The simple truth is, taking a stand-or-die issue on the war is an ENORMOUS political risk because it's so easy to be used to argue that Democrats hate the soldiers (and we'll probably have to fund the the war eventually anyway). The Democratic leadership is, I believe, doing the smart thing in maintaining a strategy that is constantly eroding Republican support. Plus, every time they have one of these votes, more Republicans are going on the record as opposing the war.
I hate the war, and I want it to end; however, I don't really care if I go down as having opposed the war the most if that means that the war won't end as quickly.

Posted by Jonathan | May 24, 2007 9:46 PM

The key point here is that, however much Americans dislike the war, they absolutely do not dislike the individual men and women in the US armed forces.

Or, to cite polling, Americans don't want the war de-funded, but they do want timetables. Bush's Veto Sharpie and GOP votes to uphold the veto means no timetables. So the Dems are stuck with having to provide funding, because they don't get to parade around in pseudo-military garb against a backdrop of people in uniform.

Absent impeachment, there will be no major reduction in troop levels before 2009. What the Dems need to do until then is make clear exactly whose decision that is.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 25, 2007 3:21 AM