The war in Iraq is whose campaign issue?

For months, it seemed as if Republicans, gearing up for the campaign season, were living in some kind of bizarro world in which they wanted to run on, instead of away from, the war in Iraq. I never quite understood the logic of emphasizing a disastrous war that Americans have grown to deeply resent, but the GOP, which is pretty good at this campaigning stuff, seemed pretty confident in the strategy.

That, at least, was the idea in the early summer. Now, Republicans seem to have given up on that game plan.

Four months ago, the White House offered a set of clear political directions to Republicans heading into the midterm elections: embrace the war in Iraq as critical to the antiterrorism fight and belittle Democrats as advocates of a “cut and run” policy of weakness.

With three weeks until Election Day, Republican candidates are barely mentioning Iraq on the campaign trail and in their television advertisements.

Even President Bush, continuing to attack Democrats for opposing the war, has largely dropped his call of “stay the course” and replaced it with a more nuanced promise of flexibility.

It is the Democrats who have seized on Iraq as a central issue. In debates and in speeches, candidates are pummeling Republicans with accusations of a failed war.

What a concept. There was some talk not too long ago that Dems would shy away from “the GOP’s turf” and campaign on domestic policy, instead of the war and national security. In other words, some Dems seriously suggested we replay 2002 and 2004 all over again, as if the strategy worked the last two cycles.

Fortunately, those suggestions were ignored. Iraq is front and center, where it should be.

Taken together, the discussion on the campaign trail suggests just how much of a problem the Iraq war has become for Republicans. It represents a startling contrast with the two national elections beginning in 2002 with the preparation for the Iraq invasion, in which Republicans used the issue to keep Democrats on the run on foreign policy and national security.

The development also suggests that what has been a classic strategy of Mr. Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove — to turn a weakness into a strength — is not working as well as the White House had hoped.

“As the Iraq war gets more unpopular, the environment for Republican candidates erodes,” said Mark Campbell, a Republican strategist who represents several Congressional candidates, including Representative Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, who is fighting for re-election in one of the toughest races.

“Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page,” Mr. Campbell said.

Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, told the NYT, “For the first time in modern memory, Democrats are actually on the offensive when it comes to national security…. It is really stunning.” It shouldn’t be; this is simply overdue.

So, if Republicans don’t want to talk about Iraq, and they can’t rely on the “family values” pitch anymore, what’s the campaign message? The far-right Washington Times reported today that the GOP is “trying to shift the focus to the economy.” That may not be the right idea, either.

Through September, the growth in hourly wages was flat or negative for 27 of the previous 29 months, according to Labor Department data….Workers are barely keeping up. Health care, wages and energy prices are consumers’ top three economic concerns, according to a Gallup poll in September.

“That has to do with things like stagnant wages, fears of jobs being outsourced, income security. These are on people’s minds, particularly in lower- and middle-income areas,” said Dennis Jacobe, chief economist in Charlotte, N.C., for Gallup.

“I think it’s quite clear to people that their paychecks are being squeezed when they try to meet their family budgets,” said Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “There’s a disconnect between overall economic performance and paychecks of working families.”

Honestly, if Dems don’t excel this year, we might as well give up.

Republicans are Teflon right now. Anything we choose to run on, ANYTHING, will stick. It might as well be what we believe in.

It’s more important to be strong in our convictions than what our convictions are. There will be no blowback to running against this war. What’s more, the final nail in the coffin, should we take Congress, would be to force the US to withdraw before Bush leaves office, to give the next President a clean slate. The only way that will happen is to put the heat on for withdraw, if we manage to get power.

  • Hint to Democrats:

    2 billion a week spent on Bush’s Iraq mess would buy every schoolchild in America a $1000 laptop within half a year.

    Hint to Democrats:

    Educate the voting public about the difference between a million and a billion.

    For example: A million seconds is 11 days.
    Whereas: A billion seconds is 30 years.

    Hint to Democrats:

    Do some math along these lines.
    Make the numbers personal.

  • “Honestly, if Dems don’t excel this year, we might as well give up.”

    I think that might be true for both parties. If Dems don’t do well, we need to ask some fundamental questions about why we’re not effective. If the GOP doesn’t hold at least one chamber of Congress, I think the Libertarians, the Chamber of Commerce types, the Third Manifest Destiny dreamers, and Theocrat/gun nut/macacite coalition will start blaming one another for their collective failure. If things go well on election night, we should start popping corn.

  • Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, told the NYT, “For the first time in modern memory, Democrats are actually on the offensive when it comes to national security…. It is really stunning.”

    Well, unless you consider the 1960 Presidential election modern memory. JFK ran on a platform of the GOP being “soft on communism”, and of the “bomber and missile gap” between the US and the Soviet Union.
    It wasn’t until the post-Vietnam era that the Democrats were hounded with the stereotype of being weak on national security, which was perpetuated in the 1980s by the “get tough” Reaganites ( who retreated from Lebanon, and invaded a small Carribbean island).

  • 2Manchu forgot to mention that the “get tough Republicans” and Saint Ronald in particular, “got tough” with terrorists by selling them thousands of our most advanced missiles.

    Always, ALWAYS remind Republicans of this fact, because it goes to the credibility of the current criminals (who have brought back a lot of the players from the Iran-Contra scandal).

    I shudder to think what this administration has done that we haven’t found out about yet.

  • Now that we’ve won the campaign issue on the War on Iraq, it’s time to get back to the evident failures of the Bushites and Republican’ts on the War on Terror (God, I hate that title). Their failure to revenge the Cole, their failure to attend to warnings of 9/11, their failure to capture Osama bin Laden, their failure in Iraq causing the vast increase of terrorists.

    Boy George II seems to think that there are a finite number of terrorists and if we can just smoke them out and drive them into Iraq, we can kill them all. Somebody needs to make that case that it does not work that way. Nor is it moral to use Iraq as our private battleground with our al Qaeda enemies.

    But let’s get back to “State of Denial” and stop worrying about Foley.

    Attack their last bastion of strength spin and win this election.

  • Koreyel is right.

    Convert all large numbers into concrete examples whenever possible. The idiots who haven’t yet figured out that they’re being screwed by the R’s cannot tell the difference between a million and a billion, but they CAN remember that six months of the Iraq war costs enough to buy every kid in America a computer.

  • I disagree with Lance somewhat. Foley is a referendum on the Republicrook “leadership”. Pry that crock open, let the stink waft around, and the “values voters” will stay home. The problem is the ability of the swing voter to think in our polluted environment where CNN and Fox compete to see who can tell the biggest whoppers.

    Foley is a gem because it is SIMPLE. It’s much easier to understand that the R’s covered up for a predator than that somehow voting for Democrats will win the GWOT. Covering up a child predator goes straight to Republicrook credibility, which undercuts EVERYTHING they say about EVERYTHING.

    I agree that the GWOT is a BS name for a war, but I think we’re stuck with it for now.

  • Foley is process, GWOT failures are substance.

    Besides, as we’ve seen, the economy is not a winning issue. We have to take the last one away.

    No one is going to believe, after all, that Democrats have better values than Republicant’s 🙂 are they?

  • The economy? Excuse me while I laugh myself into a coma. Or do I mean comma? The only people doing well in the current economy are the people who make as much money as Shrub & Dick. 1% of the population does not a victorious election make.

    Of course, if those folks agree to pick up DieVote’s tab we might still be in trouble.

  • An effective campaign slogan: “A vote for Republicans is a vote for Osama Bin Laden.”

    Why, do you say? Simply point out that everything Bu$h has done, and he couldn’t have done anything without this rubber stamp congress, has played right into terrorist hands.

    For instance: Terrorists want to change our society, and now, thanks to Bu$h, the land of the free and home of the brave now cowers in the basement afraid of the terror boogeyman. We have diverted our resources to Iraq when we should have finished the job in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is now resurfacing. Because of the foolish Iraqi occupation, we are now indebted to foreign nations that could crash the dollar anytime they see fit to call in their debts. Immediately after 9-11, we had the sypathy of the world, and could have done something real against terror with the aid of our allies. Now, 6 years later, the infantile Bu$h is the laughing stock of the world, our reputation has been detroyed, and terror is on the rise.

    I could go on and on, but I think the point has been made!

  • “As the Iraq war gets more unpopular, the environment for Republican candidates erodes,”…This should read -As more American’s come to realize that the war in Iraq is based upon Bogus Intel. and misleading Info. Republicans who support the war are becoming more exposed for what they really are….Most American’s now realize that war in Iraq is based upon Zero..How can a Republican candidate expect to get support when he or she claims that something based upon zero can be won??

  • I gotta agree with Lance. GWOT is this administrations Achille’s heel. Used to defend and justify everything its done, including IRAQ. If the Democrats can show it for the sham it is they’ll rule for years to come.

    But I’d take it a step further by reminding voters the President refused for more than a year to conduct a 9/11 investigation. Then he appointed a partisian political insider as executive director. And, refused to testify under oath (or without Dick Cheney present). His commission ignored testimony from former FBI agents and criticial forensic evidence. It’s the same story as FoleyGate…without the sex. But with thousands of people dead….and the threat of real terrorism even greater today than in 2001.

    GWOT is nothing more than an excuse to spend billions on the defense industry. Yet another similarity to Vietnam.

    I’m betting there’s a terrorism ‘October Surprise’ in the works. Democrats should have neutralized this issue months ago.

  • Oh yeh, I one more thing. I believe the FBI stated recently that the reason “9/11” isn’t mentioned on its Osama “most-wanted” page is because they have no hard evidence linking him to the attacks.

    So who are we fighting in the GWOT? And why?

  • Comments are closed.