September 13, 2007

9/13: Counter Programming Progress

The past two times Iraq has been the focus of attention in the Senate (the 5/07 supplemental, and the 7/07 DoD authorization bill) John Edwards has struggled to retain relevancy while his office-holding counterparts soaked up the coverage. In 5/07, Edwards took hits from Russ Feingold for sniping from the sidelines and few in the nat'l press corps were impressed with his 7/07 poverty tour. This time around Edwards may have found the right recipe for staying on topic while not stepping on any toes. His 9/7 speech promoting a Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO) has been a hit in the blogosphere. And whether by design or accident, the coverage has rolled out for almost a full week now. True, the platform of a Senate seat might be a more ideal vehicle for fighting Pres. Bush, but reminding potential supporters about fundamental ways you differ from your opponents on foreign pol. while they appear to be getting closer and closer, is a decent second best.

CLINTON: Z-Big's Travel Agent More Qualified Than Hillary

Following Barack Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech The Plank's Michael Crowley elicited a Zbigniew Brzezinski attack on Hillary Clinton's claim that she has visited 82 foreign nations: "I would say my travel agent has probably been to more than 82 countries, but that doesn't qualify my travel agent to be secretary of state or president." More Z-Big hope-bundles include: "Being First Lady is not the same thing as showing, on her own, that she understands what is really at stake in a situation, and to understand it early on, and not to understand it when a lot of other people have belatedly reached the same conclusion."

DODD: In Many Ways, Doddmania Never Left

Chris Dodd scored two Iraq related hits among the netroots 9/12. First Atrios quotes Dodd's attack on Barack Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech under the header 'Doddmania.' From Dodd: "I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment ... Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity. Without tying a date certain to funding how does he plan to enforce his call for an immediate redeployment?" Atrios simply comments: "Indeed."

MyDD's Todd Beeton links to Dodd and blogs: "I do think Dodd scored today because just as he successfully distinguished himself from the front-runners, he also drew a line in the sand between standing strong and capitulating in order to incentivize his colleagues to do the former. Hopefully they'll listen."

Atrios also was a fan of Dodd's opposition another Levin-Reed amendment in any Iraq related legislation. Daily Kos' mcjoan links and adds: "Stop a bad bill in the Senate. Chris Dodd makes it easy. Seriously, the Dems need to hear from us in the kinds of numbers that the Republicans got during the immigration debate. Their phones never stopped ringing. Call your Congressperson and your Senators and tell them no more funding without a strict timetable for withdrawal."

EDWARDS: Against Shady Informalness

Talking Points Memo's Ben Craw posted part two of his 9/7 interview with John Edwards 9/12. Craw pitches: "In today's episode of TPMtv we bring you Part II of our interview, in which we talk to the former Senator about how soon he would drawn down US troops in Iraq, what he thinks of the Petraeus progress report, and how he has evolved as a presidential candidate."

Also blogging on Edwards and foreign policy, Crooked Timber's Henry Farrell weighs in on Edwards proposed Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO): "My first reaction to this is that it's going to be extremely difficult to pull this proposal off. It's really, really hard to get states to cooperate on intelligence and internal security stuff - much harder in practice than to get them to cooperate in waging war. ... These doubts aside, I think that this is a worthwhile proposal for two reasons. First - it clearly puts the emphasis of combatting international terrorism where it should be - on policing and domestic intelligence. ... Second, it may over time bring various rather shady existing forms of informal cooperation between intelligence and security services into the light, and make them more accountable to democratic authority."

Finally, New America Foundation' William Hartung blogs at TPM Cafe on Edwards 5/07 address to the Council on Foreign Relations: "[O]n at least one issue -- national security -- John Edwards has set himself apart from his two main rivals, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. ... Perhaps Edwards' most important contribution to the discussion has been his thorough critique of the whole notion of a 'Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).' ... To his credit, Edwards has also refused to get into a 'bidding war' over who can propose larger troop increases for the U.S. military, noting that 'the numbers approach only gets us into the same problem as the president's approach' unless there is a clear idea of 'what the troops will actually be used for.'"

OBAMA: For Those Of You Keeping Score At Home, He Wants Troops In Iraq Longer Than He Did Before

Barack Obama did not deliver anything new in his 9/12 Iraq speech to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton on Iraq. For some, the speech was even a step backwards. The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli notes: "Obama will vow to have all combat brigades withdrawn by the end of next year. That's the big plan? Problem: he already voted with Hillary last January to have everyone out by the end of March, '08. Once again, Hillary was far stronger in her comments today, and she didn't need a week-long build-up." Open Left's Matt Stoller adds: "Obama in his plan today moves the withdrawal date back eight months from his stance in May, which is a right-ward move."

Other less-than-positive reviews include:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Despite the decisiveness with which he opposed the war back in 2002 and the clarity with which he now declares the urgency of beginning withdrawal, his speech did lack both when it comes to a timeline for the completion of withdrawal and on the issue of residual troops, both of which attracted criticism from his rivals. ... Is Obama's lack of specificity on the topic telegraphing his openness to a compromise bill without a hard deadline for withdrawal of combat troops?"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama Squanders A Major Opportunity on Residual Forces ... To be blunt, I don't really know how pulling out all combat troops would "sharpen that distinction." At all. As far as I can tell, every single Democrat running for President is talking about removing all combat troops. ... Considering that he opposed the war from the start, Obama is a position to really seize the mantle of progressive foreign policy in this campaign. However, he will be unable to do that as long as he continues to favor a significant residual force of at least 40,000 troops that is roughly the equivalent of Clinton's plans."
• Taylor Marsh: "Obama's suggestion of a new Constitutional convention, which "should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached" is rife with problems and the inherent overreach that the nationalistic Iraqis will hate. It's silly, frankly. What are we going to do lock the door?"
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama Is Done ... Only a strategy that brings progressives, African-Americans, and young people can block a Clinton nomination, and that requires a real withdrawal strategy on Iraq and some real leadership. Obama, with his recent speech and his Oprah obsession, has now made it quite clear that his strategy is targeted at elites and that he will not pull this coalition together. ... At crunch time, Obama is almost always absent, or even on the other side."

Not everyone hated the speech. Blue Hampshire's Elwood blogs: "The speech is very eloquent - in a way that cheers me in terms not only of his strengths as a candidate, but also of his thoughtfulness and willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. ... I want to see Obama demonstrate that he won't embrace the Beltway because of his supposed inexperience."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas called the speech 'good' and especially liked Obama's attack on "the pundits and politicians who let this monstrosity happen."

GIULIANI: Nashua Or Bust

A Rich LowryCorner post making the case that Rudy Giuliani needs to win in NH if he wants to win big in FL and on 2/5 drew counter analysis from campaign field operatives. A "NH Romney Guy" writes in: "I think you've missed a few things with your Secret Plan. First - The Mayor has advertised here in New Hampshire - not only on the radio, but he has also dropped several mail pieces. Second - According to Real Clear Politics, in December the Mayor led Governor Romney by double digits - the Mayor was well known in the State going into the race. It was Governor Romney who had to make up ground. ... What's happening is that New Hampshire residents are responding to the Governor's message and his commitment to play in New Hampshire."

An IA Rudy Guy then reports: "It's tough in Iowa after Mitt spending literally millions of dollars here, mostly of his own money. ... To win the Iowa caucuses, Rudy needs about 32% of the caucus goers or 33,000 people. That's the goal. Rudy's campaign is spending the next two weeks on raising money, and then are going to start spending money like crazy. They've purposely not spent hardly ANY money, ala Romney BECAUSE no one pays attention this early. ... They ARE nervous though about Romney's spending, although they consider it to be crazy."

Finally, Lowry summarizes thoughts from a GA friend: "Rudy is raising something like $350,000 in three events there today. That's one day in one state. Is there any way that Thompson is going to come anywhere close to that kind of fundraising pace?"

HUCKABEE: Whose Line Is It Anyway?

The Corner's David Freddoso was not the only conservative that helped the Club for Growth continue their Mike Huckabee vendetta, linking to their new 'TaxHikeMike' website.

At Townhall, Matt Lewis notes that Huckabee has been stealing lines from Newt Gingrich (on FedEx and tracking immigrants) and Colin Powell (Pottery Barn rule).

MCCAIN: The Sunniest Of Warriors

Instapundit links to coverage of John McCain's latest conference call and comments: "One thing you've got to say for John McCain -- his outreach to the "new media" crowd has been excellent." Those on the call report:

• Robert Bluey: "McCain told me he would like to see Bush on television once a week talking about the situation on the ground in Iraq. ... McCain also told me Bush should acknowledge that mistakes have been made in order for the American people to regain trust in him. Before people accept the fact that U.S. forces are making progress, McCain said they must first hear from Bush that errors were made in the past."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "John McCain was "feeling it" during his blogger phone conference today. ... I asked McCain whether, in light of Gen. Petraeus's concession that parts of Baghdad remain under the control of Shia militias and dominated by fear, he thought the recommended troop reduction was a pure military judgment, or at least in part the product of political calculation and concerns about manpower. McCain said Petraeus has committed to him that if he needs more troops he will ask for him."
• Soren Dayton: "First, John McCain is not as tired as he used to be. ... He talked about being on the bus with his POW buddies. That seems important for him psychologically. ... McCain is the most comfortable of all the candidates on either side in simply talking about the war."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I asked the Senator if Republican candidates had a responsibility to be leaders in terms of supporting the surge, because the American people are taking their cues from our leaders. McCain said he can't control how others run their campaigns, but that he believes candidates do have the ability to influence foreign policy debates.
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "He is in a positively sunny mood and thinks events are now on his side. Although he says the No Surrneder tour is "more important" than the campaign it frankly is his campaign and is going to early primary states of Iowa, NH, and SC--the states he's identified as must wins."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty quotes McCain on whether the US should "take out" al-Sadr: "I agree with you, when they first had a warrant out for his arrest, back in 2003, I met with Bremer and Sanchez and I said 'get that guy.' There was some worry that would stir up the Shiites. It's well chronicled in Fiasco and Cobra II. Now he's bouncing back and forth to Iran. He stays in well-populated areas. I'm not that tactically proficient about the situation on the ground, but it is important to arrest him and put him on trial for murder.

THOMPSON: McCain Lite?

George Will's "Fred-bashing column" is getting plenty of conservative play. The most quoted excerpt appears to be: "Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told [Laura] Ingraham 'I voted for all of it,' meaning McCain-Feingold, but said 'I don't support that' provision of it. Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress' especially 'compelling interest' in squelching issue ads that 'influence' elections?"

In more positive, Thompson blogging, RCP's Blake Dvorak notes Fred08 led the league in traffic last week, and adds: "Not sure if this means much. Thompson after all did post his highly anticipated announcement video on his site." Other Thompson quick hits include:

• NY Sun's Ryan Sager: "According to a number of Jacksonville-area Republican donors I've spoken to in recent days, the former Tennessee senator's unimpressive early organization and late entry into the presidential race have led to a group of power players signing up with Mr. Thompson's chief rival for the social-conservative vote: the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.
• Instapundit: "Is Fred a fizzle? He's had a lot of time to put together a well-oiled machine, and from what I can see he hasn't done so. Since putting together an effective team is a major part of being a successful President, I think that's a bad sign."
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "Yesterday I posited that Romney and Thompson were a study in contrast, but maybe the greater contrast is McCain and Thompson. McCain : spits details, is raring to go and leaves no doubts as to where he is on any issue(not always a good thing in his case). Thompson : Not any of that."
• The Corner's Seth Leibsohn: "Re: Fred Thompson Not Regularly Going to Church ... Going to church matters, of course it does. I don't think it matters much ... Here's the test: Assume you are a social-values voter, perhaps a religious social values voter, and it's 1980 and all you knew of the two major candidates was that one was from the South, married to the same woman all his life, considered himself "born again," and was a regular church going member of the Baptist church whose sister did evangelical work while the other was a divorced, non-church going former actor who lived in California. Okay, given that's all you know, where's your vote going?"

IRAQ: How Do You Solve A Problem Like Iraq?

A 9/11 Juan Cole post on the harsh consequences Dems face should they fail to force significant troop reductions before Pres. Bush leaves office continues to drive netroots posting. Cole blogged: "If the Democrats cannot prevail in withdrawing before Bush goes out of office (and they cannot), and if they then rapidly draw down the troops on taking office in 2009, they face the real prospect of a "Gerald Ford meltdown" of the sort that occurred in 1975 when the North Vietnamese and their VC allies took over South Vietnam." Reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Though 2008 is looking like a good election, with a probable Democratic President and expanded Democratic majorities in both houses, it's fairly likely that, for the reasons Cole outlines, we're going to get crushed in the 2010 midterm elections, and the next President will be a one-termer. ... Primaries or not, by 2010, many of the Bush Dogs will be gone. It's just a question of how long Democratic strategists remain in their deluded state of believing that, though the world has changed since 2000, the electoral map has not."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "I understand that there's a lot of very bitter disappointment in the Democrats over ending the war. I agree with some of it. But I doubt much of anything that happens from this point will efface, wash away or even substantially diminish the central fact that this is on George W. Bush's moral and political dime, and sustained from day one till today by the Republican party. "
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Now, I'm going to disagree with Juan on two grounds. First, I'm not convinced Vietnam really hurt Ford much. ... Second, the Iraq war is even more clear cut. It's so plainly George Bush's debacle ... That said, though, Juan's scenario is utterly plausible. Things very well could go that way. Dems may not have the votes to defund the war, but I sure hope they're at least thinking hard about how to keep Republicans from pinning the blame on them for its inevitable ghastly conclusion."
• The Huffington Post's Art Levine: "The current Democratic weakness in opposing Bush's war could have fatal long-term consequences for the party -- as well as for our troops -- now that Democrats have largely abandoned efforts to push for firm timelines on withdrawal. By allowing the war to drag on with over 100,000 troops likely to be in place by next November, the party is dooming itself to long-term disaster, unless Congressional Democrats find the will to effectively oppose the war."

Many in the netroots are more hopeful than cole about Dem prospects at forcing a pre-'09 withdrawal. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas strategizes: "Pass a supplemental bill with a withdrawal deadline. Let the GOP filibuster. If it comes to the point where the troops are being harmed from lack of funding, pass one-month supplementals -- keep forcing Republicans in vote after vote to stand with Bush and his hated war."

Also at Daily Kos, Meteor Blades recommends the Center for American Progress withdrawal plan and advises Dems: "In other words, fully fund a withdrawal. And make it a rapid and complete withdrawal. ... Unless Democrats can pull together to get a bill on the President's desk that funds the troops with the proviso that the money be used to start withdrawing those troops, and with a fixed date for completing the withdrawal welded to that bill, everything else going on now amounts to little more than political theater." Kossacks are already organizing against HR 3087.

IRAQ II: You Probably Think This Post Is About You

Iraq war supporters are not crazy about Pres. Bush's decision to insert himself into the Iraq debate with his 9/13 televised speech. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez seconds Charles Krauthammer analysis: "It's too bad the White House couldn't have left the story of the week be Petraeus's testimony, not Bush's final imprimatur."

Mickey Kaus also wishes Bush would take it easy: "Is it really a good idea, from President Bush's point of view, for him to give a prime time address today about Iraq? Seems like Bush speeches haven't convinced anybody of anything for several years now--especially about Iraq, but also about Social Security reform and immigration reform. ... Or is Bush too legacy obsessed--or just plain vain--to cede the lead role to Petraeus?"

VA SEN: The 11th Commandment Is So Passe

RedState's Erick Erickson makes it clear he will not support a Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) for Senate campaign: "Given the choice between Mark Warner and Tom Davis, I'd go with Mark Warner. ... The difference between the two is that with Mark Warner, you only have to figure out who the Democratic interest is to know which side he'll be on. With Tom Davis, you have to figure out who the highest bidder is to know which side he is on."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why We're Still There

Univ. of WI prof. Charles Franklin identifies three questions that have been consistently asked through out the war: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" ... "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?" ... "Do you think going to war with Iraq was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"

Franklin continues: The long run story these question tell is of decreasing support for the war, from quite strong support initially to low levels today. ... So why doesn't public opinion force an immediate end to the war? One reason is because the public is more equivocal as to motivation than to performance, and more equivocal still as to solutions. ... Anti-war forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical of various aspects of the war. But change in Congress also requires that Republican members perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the certainty of electoral catastrophe.

LEST WE FORGET: We Thought People Like Homer & Tony

The Corner's John Podhoretz points us to Kurt Anderson observations on the current state of the GOP:

The Republicans are being rapidly rebranded as a party of men who exemplify the least attractive, most pathetic aspects of the gender-they are the stubborn, arrogant, lazy, incompetent (Iraq, Katrina), hypocritical, crude, nasty fathers, Homer Simpson crossed with Tony Soprano, the kind of men who snarl and posture as old-fashioned patresfamilias but don't come through when and where it counts. The GOP is becoming the deadbeat-daddy party.

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 13, 2007 01:01 PM