Far-right uber-activist Grover Norquist and his cohort now believe that the war in Iraq is likely to cost the GOP dearly in 2008, so they’ve crafted a plan to save the party from electoral ruin. As The Hill reported, “To assuage an angry public, the activists argue that the White House soon needs to articulate clearly that the war will end.”
That would be, apparently, in contrast to the belief that the war will not end?
“The one-paragraph explanation of what we’re doing in Iraq has to have the word ‘leaving’ in there,” said Grover Norquist, a conservative leader and the head of Americans for Tax Reform. “If Bush would move to ‘leaving,’ then other people, including the MoveOn.org people and the [Democrats], move to a more extreme position than you have, because they have put themselves in the anti-Bush position.”
Norquist, who is meeting next week with White House political adviser Karl Rove, said Bush should reject a timeline and instead emphasize that he expects “fewer” troops in the region. If the administration changes nothing, it will allow Democrats to charge that the strategy isn’t working, which resonates with the public, added Norquist.
Frist, why the White House would take advice from Norquist about foreign policy is a mystery.
Second, why the White House would take advice from Norquist about anything is also a mystery.
And third, Norquist’s advice doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Basically, Norquist’s recommendation is that Rove & Co, tell Americans, “Vote GOP: because the troops will come home eventually.” I don’t have nearly as much experience losing elections as Norquist, but I have a hunch this may not work as an effective strategy.
Indeed, he seems to be operating under the twisted premise that critics of the president’s failed policy will reflexively take a hard line against anything Bush says. So, according to Norquist, if Bush were willing to suggest that U.S. troops might someday leave Iraq, the MoveOn.org crowd would “move to a more extreme position.” (What might that be? A quicker withdrawal? I think MoveOn.org is already there — right along with two-thirds of the rest of the country.)
In fact, it’s kind of amusing that Norquist believes liberals have to be “in the anti-Bush position.” It’s almost as if Norquist thinks he’s playing reverse psychology with children — tell White House detractors that Bush wants to withdraw and suddenly they won’t support withdrawal anymore!
Please. Norquist’s entire approach is pretty silly. Bush has been telling people for months that he doesn’t support an open-ended commitment in Iraq, but people don’t believe him — probably because his policy is based on an open-ended commitment in Iraq.
Besides, the president can’t very well emphasize “leaving” while also embracing a plan to keep troops in Iraq through 2009.
Norquist is fundamentally confused about the broader dynamic. He seems to believe a new spin and a better sales job will solve the problem. He’s mistaken — the problem is with the failed policy, not the White House’s inept pitch.