Them misguided Dems: Iraq, the media, and the success of White House “happy talk”

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

About a week and a half ago, as some of you may remember, the Carpetbagger wrote about “the new media narrative,” the one where “Bush and the GOP have momentum and are on the upswing”. He argued that, in truth, there is no such “comeback” or “resurgence” for the Republicans.

I responded at The Reaction, referring to “the shame of America’s free press”. What’s going on here, I argued, is that the White House’s “happy talk,” the key communications element of Chief of Staff Josh Bolten’s six-month campaign to resurrect the Bush presidency and Republican electoral fortunes, is working. The media, even major news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, are buying it. If they don’t buy it, of course, they’ll be tagged with the liberal label, which, given the success of Fox News and the influence of the right-wing spin machine, no one wants. Which is why they buy it. Or, at least, which is why they make every appearance of buying it.

And so, we are informed, Bush and the Republicans are back. Similarly, for the sake of “fairness” and “balance,” we are informed that the Democrats don’t have a plan. Democrats are divided, what with that crazy Dean guy running the DNC and the unstoppable Hillary out in front for ’08 and Kerry bitterly sniping from his perch in the Senate and, well, all the other dysfunction that seems to be weighing down the party (which now probably also includes the Kos-TNR feud).

More than anything, though, it is Iraq that divides Democrats, and Democrats from the American people. At least according to the news media. At Editor & Publisher, Greg Mitchell outlines what the media are up to and why they’re getting it all wrong:

The new efforts by Republicans in Congress, and in the media, to use Iraq to their advantage by branding Democrats as favoring a “cut-and-run'” policy, has received wide coverage in the past week. Often pundits, and even reporters, have suggested that this is working, because Americans are not in favor of a “hasty” withdrawal. Democrats are in shambles, they report, as they fear that proposals for setting a timetable for withdrawal put forward by Sen. John Kerry and Rep. John Murtha will prove disastrous for the party in the November elections, due to the alleged unpopularity of this stance.

This conclusion, however, flies in the face of surveys by all major polling firms…

It’s one thing when polls are dismissed, ignored or twisted by political or media spinmeisters. But when journalists in their news stories do it, it is downright misleading.

Misleading indeed. Which is precisely how Republicans win (and govern).

Bush and the Republicans get what they want from all this, which is the perception of a divided and largely ineffectual Democratic Party, justification for their disastrous Iraq policy, and an electorate, or at least a huge chunk of the electorate, that remains just ignorant enough, because misled by the “fair” and “balanced” news media, to mark an X next to the name of whatever candidates the GOP machinery upchucks onto a ballot.

I’m rarely one to join the blogospheric assault on the much-maligned MSM, but, more and more, I cannot help but be disturbed and enraged by its refusal to do its job properly. The shame continues.

**********

On a related note, I find this from Andrew Sullivan:

The Democrats, alas, seem hopeless to me. Their ambivalence about the war before and during it makes them seem unreliable stewards of a fight we have no choice but to join. Their flirtation with withdrawal only reinforces this impression. But they do have an opening, if they only had the conviction. If a Democratic candidate emerged who promised to stick to the Iraq war to victory, but conduct it in a more aggressive, ethical and competent way than the current crew, Americans would be more than receptive. Such a position would also help them expose the scandalous incompetence in the White House, while not being vulnerable to charges of defeatism. It won’t happen, alas. And Rove will ruthlessly exploit the war for partisan gain, as he has from the beginning. He has no scruples. For him, national security is simply part of a political game. I should therefore break the news to my liberal and Democratic readers: Rove is winning this game for now. If you stick to your anti-war position, you are left with hoping for catastrophe, which a great political party should be above. Until the Democrats confront this, the rest of us are left with the hope of McCain – but not much else. Well: prayer, I guess.

I like Andrew quite a bit, not least for his condemnation of the use of torture and for his ardent support for same-sex marriage and other basic liberties, but I’m not with him here. Democrats have different views on what to do about Iraq, but they’re not, I think, “hopeless”. A parliamentary opposition party may need to stand united against the governing party, but in the American system the “opposition” party needn’t coalesce uniformly around common policies until a presidential campaign (and perhaps not even then, given simultaneous races for different levels of government).

In addition, there must be some alternative to McCain or a McCain-style Democrat. With respect to Iraq, McCain is just a more competent and compelling Bush. That isn’t the mean between the extremes of the incompetence of the Bush Administration and the “cut-and-run” inclinations of some on the anti-war side. While Cheney et al. continue to believe in their own infallible righteousness, as well as in the unwavering righteousness of their war, Democrats, in seems to me, are engaging in a healthy debate over what to do about a situation that has spiralled out of control. That isn’t hopelessness, it’s thoughtfulness. And it’s what precedes effective and visionary leadership.

I have nothing but confidence that Democrats could be reliable stewards of American foreign policy — not just of the “fight” in Iraq but of troubles around the world, including Iran and North Korea. They should absolutely be given that opportunity once again.

(For more in response to Andrew’s anti-withdrawal argument, see Kevin Drum.)

Sullivan is a liar, a fraud, a hypocrite and a despicable piece of shit. I’m genuinely sorry to learn that you “like [him] quite a bit.” That changes my mind about you, buckaroo.

  • The fact is, we had every choice but to “join” this fight in iraq, which was an insane action. the fact that sullivan continues to support the insanity is not to his credit: this is, after all, a man who essentially lost his mind after 9/11 and spent several years accusing everyone who hadn’t lost theirs of being a potential fifth columnist. he only started to recover some semblance of sanity when the gop made it perfectly clear (as though it has been a question) that it is party policy to deny gay people their humanity.

    as for the shame of the media, yes, that’s right: this is a particiularly low period in the history of the media. however, this doesn’t excuse the egregiously large number of democrats who are too scared of the gop noise machine to point out the obvious truth about iraq: there is nothing we can “win” that is woth “winning.” Nothing.

    i had several debates recently about the heat-mavericks series which came down to this: people said that the mavs didn’t take the ball strong to the hole because they weren’t getting the “calls.” nuts, i said, that’s no excuse not to take it to the hole if that’s what the right strategy is.

    and that’s the story with most of the dems: tough if the right-wing noise machine makes it hard on you to argue the truth on iraq, but if you aren’t willing to do so, you’ve already lost.

  • Andrew Sullivan is a self-absorbed idiot. To call him a
    mediocre intellect would be a complement. I don’t know why
    you or anyone else cares what he says. If Bush had supported
    gay marriage, Sully would still be supporting Bush and his
    tragic war to this day. We all have a right to like and dislike
    what we want. But I find your affection for Sully difficult to
    understand.

  • The actual workings of the democratic(and Democratic) political process are messy and discordant when contrasted to an authoritarian party’s ability to harmonize, stage and script the will of it’s members.

    We are still pondering the question left over from WWII, “How do you defeat the Nazis without become them?”

  • I don’t know how we can talk about withdrawal from Iraq until we know precisely why we are there in the first place. I believe all the given reasons are utter bullshit, and that we’re there to gain control, through privatization, of Iraq’s oil industry, thus putting it and its enormous potential profitablity into the hands of foreign (American) corporations.

    If that is so, we aren’t leaving for a long long time. Not until we’ve secured the industry for private ownership, and that means making sure the Iraqi government does’t get cute and renationalize the industry.

    The Democrats don’t seem to know this. The Republicans obviously do. We’re in Iraq for the long haul. Maybe decades.
    This policy can only be reversed by the Democrats taking the
    White House.

  • You know, the Dems should be smarter than this, If I’m the democratic party and people start to give me crap about being “divided” I think I would call a meeting with Kerry, Reid, Pelosi et al. and use this perceived deficit to their advantage. I’d offer up several MORE alternative dates to get us out of Iraq….let them get voted down, and then by God I’d do it again. All the while asking a very simple question to the Repubs…..if not now, or then, or then, or then…..then WHEN? What’s your big idea? Quit this bullshit charade of “until it’s won” and tell us how and when you’re going to start getting us the hell outta there…..5 more years? 10? Give the American public some idea of what you consider “winning” c’mon boys and girls….then towards November when inevitably troops begin to come home….the Democrats can truly question the politicizing this damn war for their own ends…..

  • I agree with Timmy, but I also wonder why neither the Dems nor the so-called free press will ask the Cheney gang about their intentions regarding permanent bases in Iraq. I’ve read several times that they are being built, but it is never mentioned on tv or in newspapers. Why is that? And why don’t the Dems put the Cheney gang on the defensive to explain these bases? Would Cheney lie and say they aren’t doing it? I don’t think so. And permanent American bases would let the public know that we aren’t ever leaving, if it’s up to the Republicans.

    Re: Sullivan. As a woman, I can never “like” that misogynist even when he once in a while says something I agree with. Also, I totally distrust his class perspective.

  • If Sully can’t understand that democracy (you know, that thing we’re supposed to be spreading around the world) involves a lot of different opinions and a debate about the merits of which one’s the best. Sully is anti-democratic at best for not advocating a broad debate about how to finish this war.

    The terms of the debate need to be repackaged for the Dems to look wiser. Kerry should be advocating a drop dead date for the current Repub strategy: if after three years of fighting they don’t win the war by a certain date and stop the hemmoraging of blood and money, then a new strategy should be implemented with new leaders in place. The debate should point to how the Repubs squandered lives and opportunities and are looking like losers. The Dems should be advocating that we want to win and be able to declare victory. Put the Repubs on the defensive … why are they taking so long to win? If things aren’t going well, let’s get a change in leadership and in strategy.

  • Thank you petorado,

    My point exactly. Get them on the run, ask them WHY and WHEN…..and then take them to task.

  • Maybe what needs to happen, at this point, is to breach the extreme polarization of the population—the average Mr. and mrs. America—by injecting an Independent Party to the national election-mix. Something that could draw a portion of votes from both sides, and remind “The Stubborn Ass and the Bloated Pachyderm” that they’re both vulnerable. Something that wouldn’t adopt the fringes of a Perot or a Nader; instead going at the core issues with real solutions. Detailed solutions, by the way.

    An Independent Party would be something that could merge its fledgling strength with the Dems to shove the GOP back into its rightful position as “a minority party,” while at the same time cautioning the Dems to “not get too silly, or we’ll side with the ReThugs.”

    As it stands now, neither the Dems nor the GOP can meet the need for the vast majority of Americans—and that’s exactly what is needed, short of an earth-trembling scandal, to drive an incumbent entity from the throne of power….

  • Okay, okay. I like Sullivan, I don’t love him. Which isn’t to say that I always (or even often) agree with him. But his sustained criticism of the use of torture has been nothing if not admirable. So, too, his defence of same-sex marriage.

  • Comments are closed.