Dem strategery

October 25, 2005

In terms of media interest, the Plame scandal drives itself; Democrats don’t actually have to do anything. When reporters stake out Karl Rove and Scooter Libby at their homes, it’s not as if a tip from a Dem put them there.

In fact, looking back over the last two years, Dems have been largely irrelevant in driving the Plame scandal, sometimes through no fault of their own. In 2003, some leading Dem senators did their best to generate interest in what they saw as a blockbuster White House scandal, but the media showed little interest at the time. In early 2004, House Dems tried to keep the story alive, but, again, it didn’t catch on.

Obviously, with the possibility of indictments hanging over the White House, the political world is engaged, and Dems don’t have to push the story along. But the question remains the same: What do Dems do now? Roll Call reported today that party leaders are finalizing their plans.

Anticipating that indictments could come down against senior White House officials this week, House Democratic leaders have spent recent days devising a Caucus-wide plan to further highlight GOP ethical missteps and national security compromises.

Sources say House Democratic leaders have held several private meetings to shape their Members’ message if federal indictments are issued against senior White House adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. […]

Democratic leaders today are arming the Democratic Caucus with message points on a response that consists of a two-pronged argument accusing the Republicans of continuing to foster a “culture of corruption” and of compromising the nation’s security by leaking classified information. Democrats are also expected to call for the resignations of Rove and Libby if either or both are indicted.

“This is a very focused effort,” said one senior Democratic staffer. “These people compromised national security. It will be a shift away from the typical ethics strategy.”

I’m hesitant to get my hopes up, but I think Dems might be on the right track.

The “culture of corruption” approach works when it comes to DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Pombo, Frist, and the other congressional Republicans who are under investigation and/or indictment, but throwing the Plame scandal in with that group undermines the significance of the controversy.

To be sure, this is a scandal with some complexity, but the message shouldn’t be too difficult to articulate if indictments are issued.

1. It’s a scandalous breakdown in national security that put America at risk during a time of war.

2. The White House lied about Iraq, then they lied to cover it up.

3. Perjury and obstruction of justice matter, even when they have nothing to do with sex.

Throw in George H. W. Bush’s quote on the subject (“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors”) and RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie admitting that this scandal is worse than Watergate “in terms of the real-world implications,” and it seems like Dems have a pretty compelling pitch for the public, right?

2. The White House lied about Iraq, then they lied to cover it up.

Plus, spite. They leaked to spite a critic and destroy him. People understand the politics of personal destruction and this was an important part of this.

  • I think the Dems are drawing a good bead on the overall message. But there’s a key point in all this that’s not being talked about, which could really help the Dems down the line.

    It wasn’t Wilson or a Dem who got this investigation going. IT WAS THE CIA.

    The CIA asked Justice to investigate this leak, which means the government as a bureacracy is investigating itself. This is not a partisan fight. It is a question about whether a small group of elected officials get to do whatever they want with our government when they take office.

    So get the word out: the CIA asked for Fitzgerald’s investigation. The CIA.

    And if that doesn’t make Dick Cheney have another heart attack, nothing will.

  • To me that’s the best part. In the Clinton days it was a partisan witch-hunt for whatever they could possibly dig up…..cause they didn’t like Bill. This is much worse, and goes to the point, don’t piss off the CIA or you might
    be the target of an investigation. It makes my head spin that some Repubs are still saying “It’s just perjury, I mean, they should get a real crime…..” how soon we forget, didn’t we impeach someone for just that?

    Can’t have it both ways you idiots…..I love it when we can all go back to the public record and watch these morons just revise, revise, revise…..

  • Timmy,

    Wait till the Wilson’s file their civil law suit, you’ll have love coming out your ears!

  • Really, don’t get your hopes up. I’m not sure how they’ll do it, I’m only a simple blogger, but somehow the Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    The meme from “conservatives” has already begun that “neoconservatives” aren’t “real conservatives”, they’re just “liberals with guns”.

    By the time the Rethugs are done, they’ll demonstrate that the Democrats have been controlling the White House all along with cleverly planted moles.

    But I’m not bitter.

  • It all comes down to what the grand jury
    and Fitzgerald do:

    If no indictments – the Republicans win
    a smashing victory. This is the last hope
    to expose this worst of all administrations
    in American history.

    Perjury/obstruction charges – maybe the
    Dems can eek out a draw, if they don’t
    wimp out, as they usually do.

    Beyond that, direct charges, a suggestion
    that the entire administration lied about
    the war and is involved in a coverup –
    maybe the Dems could finally overcome
    the Republican attack machine, if the
    media decides to investigate instead
    of playing referee for politics as usual.

    But I don’t hold out any hope, except
    that I do think there will be indictments.

  • It will be good to see an organized stratgey. I think , ultimately, public opinion will be shaped by the facts as they come out, however. People are waking up to the spin of the media, and learning (however slowly) to get objective facts for themselves.

    The real problem is to get people to VOTE, rather than just be disgusted and develop the “what difference does it make who is in charge” attitude that people have thrown at me in recent years. The dems not only have to differentiate themselves, but they must learn to turn out their voters.

    If you want to make a difference, get out there and walk a precinct. I keep saying this, but Dems need to do it. And if you REALLY want to make a difference, become an area precinct captain. That would make the biggest difference of all.

  • Lets be clear: democrats may gain some short terms success from this story, which will only mask their long term deficiencies. Republicans still have a ‘better pyramid’ and until they correct that problem, their ‘success’ is not based on their own actions.

    I see this strategy as very risky in the current political environment. Many democrats criticized the investigations of the Clinton administration as being politically motivated. You can expect republicans to point to quotes on the investigations being politically motivated to argue this is ‘payback.’ Dyed in the wool democrats and republicans will both see factors to distinguish the claims, and if the dispute turns into a fight over the distinctions, the middle will be lost. It is the middle that matters. Democrats run the risk of having the middle throw up its collective arms and ‘disengage’ from the scrum if the dispute turns into a debate of how this is or is not like the Clinton perjury claim. That may be what republicans are banking on, and this strategy could fall right into the hands of republicans.

    I think democrats should seek to shore up support for Patrick Fitzgerald, note his republican credentials, and laud the fact that he is not (or does not appear to be) putting party above country. Make it an even handed, low key, approach. Work on the swing voters by noting the seriousness of the charges, and the significance of them being brought by a republican special prosecutor who put country above party. If the democrats are viewed as the accusors, they will not win converts.

  • A commenter above got it right: most of these scandal stories– including Plame– are not about Democrats vs. Repugs. They are about Wonks vs Hacks (as Josh Marshall so aptly put it).

    The Wonks– the career lifer public servants who take their jobs and responsibilities very seriously, are the immune system that is rejecting the malicious infestation of the Hacks– those sleazy, on-the-take, fly-by-night, corporate-owned elected politicians who have far overstepped their boundaries during the last 20 years of “privatised”, run-America-like-a-business Repug rule. The business they chose to run the country like was Enron. After years of just hoping for the best, the Wonks are not having any of it.

    Now many Democrats *are* wonks, and certainly the Democrats have always been on the side of the career civil service; it comes along with being advocates of working men and women. And of being intellectuals and thinkers. But Democrats aren’t driving the agenda here; we’re just sitting back and enjoying the outcome of the efforts of our great civil servants: career CIA and FBI, a few in the military and JCS, Justice department lifers, incredibly professional career prosecutors like Earle and Fitzgerald.

    It used to be said: never fuck with the British Civil Service. And as we become an empire, our bureaucracy is arriving at the same level of power and equilibrium. The Repugs have been brutal in attacking, demeaning, undermining, starving, or outright destroying the institutions of our government. It’s a key part of their ideological revolutionary struggle– as Krugman points out in his preface to “The Great Unraveling”. Here is a case where the institutions are fighting back, kicking out the hostile invaders.

    Now what can we as partisan, civilian, private-sector Democrats do about it? And what can the party itself do? Offer a clear alternative. This is our moment. This is our chance to stand FOR something; we don’t need to tear the Repugs down because the career prosecutors and the smell-blood-in-the-water press are doing that. What we need to do here is offer a clear vision of the kind of America we want to live in. Think about it, all of us. If you could start clean, and erase the last 25 years of Reagan/Gingrich/Rove/FOX horseshit, what would you put in its place? Think very seriously about it, but dream big dreams. I’m not looking for incremental improvement; I’m looking for a vision of an America we’d all be proud of, one we’d never think of “bashing” or “blaming”.

    What would such a country do? What actions would it take? What principles would guide its choices when the inevitable compromises and tradeoffs need to be made? This is what we need to take to this country in 2006 and 2008. It’s more than ready to hear it.

    • Comments are closed.