As Bush continues to squirm in the face of accusations of apparently illegal surveillance of US citizens (an issue cs has been following here at LP), and unconvincing justifications are offered by his subordinates, commentary on the Republican prospects in the mid term elections next year has focussed on the weakness of the Democratic opposition. Despite the partisan nature of politics in the US, and its reflections in the blogosphere, it can often be inaccurate to characterise the US Democrats as a “left” party. “Liberal” – in the American sense of the word – is a better descriptor, and it’s worth noting that US parties are broad coalitions of different regional and ideological wings, which rarely present coherent programs and messages in Congressional races in the same way that parties in Westminster democracies do. This has to be born in mind when assessing the Demos’ message on Iraq. Nevertheless, recent electoral cycles have seen a greater centralisation of party messages, and as West Wing viewers would know, a tendency to pick particular candidates for particular races at the national level. One big strategic mistake the Bushies made recently was to impugn the patriotism of Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Vietnam veteran. Again, much of the Democrats’ message on the war has to be seen in the context of the martial traditions of the US, and the sense of national unity that develops around support for fighting troops and veterans. It’s for this reason that a very interesting development is significant. Demos have increasingly been selecting Iraq War veterans to run in tight congressional races for next year. Many of these veterans, like Tammy Duckworth are severely injured. Duckworth is contesting the district of Representative Henry Hyde, veteran Illinois Republican and orchestrator of the Clinton impeachment effort.
As Duckworth says:
“I had my legs blown off in Iraq, and because I had my legs blown off in Iraq people are listening to me,” said Ms. Duckworth, 37, who plans to announce her candidacy officially on Sunday, at a rally and in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” “I’m not going to get my legs back, and that’s fine, but if that gives me a platform to talk about the things that are important to me, like education and jobs, that’s great.”
Recently, an Iraq vet scored 48% in a by-election for a normally heavily Republican district.
Political commentator Amy Cook explains the strategic logic:
What the Democratic leaders are looking for is “somebody who can deliver a message on Iraq but the messenger won’t be instantly discredited as a typically liberal Democrat – that’s the theory of the formula,” explained Amy Walter, who follows House races for The Cook Political Report, the quintessential Washington handicapper. The veterans, Ms. Walter added, “have an instant level of credibility to talk about that.”
It will be very difficult for Republicans to counter candidates like Duckworth. It’ll be interesting to see how the chicken hawks react.
this strategy didn’t work before.
bush beat Vietnam vet and decorated soldier McCain by saying he was subject to brainwashing and the rest in the primaries.
He then beat vietnam vet and decorated soldier in the election by essentially saying he was a traitor.
In the senate a disabled Vietnam vet and decorated soldier was beaten.
when over 70% of Yanks believe Hussein was associated with 11/9 it would be thus.
Now bush is believed to be a less moral man than Bill Clinton!!!!
consequently this strategy is backfiring.
One more thing. the Iraqi army and police are put into Shia, Sunni , Kurdish regiments etc.
This bodes badly for respect and enforcement of the law. Think Northern Ireland and then multiply it by a million and you see the problem!
There’s a significantly different political climate in 2005 compared to 00 and 04, Homer.
And the reaction to the attempted trashing of Murtha is a good exemplar of how different that climate is – falling poll numbers, charges against Liddy and DeLay, dissension within the Republican Party and the base, missteps like the Supreme Court and Katrina. Bush might be enjoying in the short term positive publicity in the wake of the Iraqi election, but you’d really have to hope that the best case scenario happens in Iraq – it hasn’t so far. The other key thing is the increasing awakening of a previously supine media.
er Martk,
That was what I said!
I wasn’t quite sure what you said, Homer!
There’s also a very different symbolism between Iraq and Vietnam veterans. Kerry bore the stigma of the anti-Vietnam movement, whereas there’s a much greater sense in the minds of those opposing the Iraq War than in the 60s and the 70s of the status of troops at war being sacrosanct. Indeed, there’s mileage both in pointing out that it’s largely economically and socially disadvantaged Americans doing the fighting and also given people’s doubts about the War, there’s a power in having those same doubts expressed by people who’ve been fighting in it.
Cleland and McCain both were victims of disgraceful and unethical attacks.
Mark, most times I don’t know what I’m saying!
I don’t think the cleland/McCain attacks will work now.
Thanks, Homer, then we agree again!
Chickenhawks?
Most veterans in the US House of Representatives are Republicans. (Combat veterans: 9-7 D/R). Most veterans in the US Senate are Republicans. (Combat veterans: 4-4 D/R). Most gubernatorial veterans are Republicans. (Combat veterans: 0-1 D/R).
Having served in war doesn’t mean a whole lot when it comes to foreign policy anyway. Hitler was a decorated vet. So was Lyndon Johnson. Gough “East Timor Genocide” Whitlam was also a returned serviceman. As for Murtha, he made an idiot of himself by calling for something which he then voted against. The people of Iraq don’t actually seem to have much interest in the Murtha cut ‘n’ run policy. Turns out being in Vietnam 40 years ago as a youngster isn’t exactly a qualification for geo-strategic analysis of the Middle East. Imagine that.
Kerry lost because he lied about being a commando, lied about his whereabouts in the war and came home and trashed his confrers. He lost because a lot of people quite rightly regarded him as a traitor. That’s to say nothing of the fact that he voted for a war “before he voted against it.”
The Iraq War was won and things are looking especially good for democracy in that country. The Democrats – logic demands the assertion – believe that Saddam Hussein should be restored to power.
I feel sorry for Ms Duckworth and I respect her. She should never have been placed in immediate danger. Having lost her legs in the war, however, doesn’t mean she necessarily has anything intelligent to say about jobs and education.
And so it is that he American political system becomes increasingly militarised, if it keeps going in this direction soon anyone who hasn’t served wouldn’t be able to stand….
On the other hand, in this scenario the Nixionian deadenders currently pulling the chimp strings wouldn’t get a look in…….”look contrite George” and don’t forget the partial candour.
Hurray for our men and women in uniform. A democratic society is a militarised one.
By the way, I love the way CL regurgitates Republican Party talking points, oh why do they have such contempt for their men in uniform. If anyone thinks that what happened to Cleland, Kerry, McCain and Murtha won’t happen again and won’t stick you only have to read CL’s comments to see and hear the Swiftboat approaching.
CL’s parallel universe.
Especially good! Sometimes I have to agree that the left can’t do humour like the right.
I’d like to think that the Dems picking Iraq Vets will be a success but I’m not so sure. I can’t immediately think of a GOP counter, but I couldn’t think of a counter to Kerry untill the whole Swift Boat Vets for Truth affair. It could backfire because in some sense voters might see it all as too cheesy. No offence intended to those who are runing, I’m sure they are dedicated and committed individuals. I think however that voters might see it as a cynical ploy to grab votes and that could really hurst in the polls.
Take for instance Michael Moore’s angle in Farenheit 911, the GOP portrayed Moore as taking advantage of the plight of soldiers for political reasons (somehow avoiding the point that they were indeed the plight). Then again the GOP was running high last year.
It’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out…
Why’s that C.L? Too weak? Too emotional? Unable to assess multiple technical tasks as well as men? Or is this (bad) satire of defunct ‘science’?
The people of Iraq donât actually seem to have much interest in the Murtha cut ânâ run policy.
Actually, Most Iraqis oppose U.S troops, poll says
Murtha’s statement is here putting him more or less in line with half the (ungrateful) Iraqi population. And Tbogg has a nice summary of his career here. Tad more impressive than 40 years ago as a youngster.
The vote he opposed was for immediate withdrawl rather than at “the earliest practicable date.â?.
Sounds like you’re revealing your own prejudices, dk. Careful.
Yes, Steve, especially good. Notice the election, did you? Or do I detect a race-based suspicion that the Iraqis shouldn’t have the vote?
Perhaps.
But it’s more likely you detect an opportunity to go off on a tangent.
(Or perhaps you’re revealing your own prejudices?)
Chicken hawks, C.L., is normally a reference to the Bushes and Cheneys of the world who were either defending Texas from Alabama or had “other priorities” during the Vietnam war.
Yes, I know Mark but neither gentleman is up for re-election in 2006. The gist of the post is that the GOP itself could be in a strategic pickle next year because veterans might oppose them in particular races. The implication hinted at is that the war party is made up of preppie non-servers and the surrender party of compelling veterans.
I merely pointed out that most veterans in the Congress are Republicans.
I withdraw the reference to race, above. But it really doesn’t matter what the Iraqis do, does it? Most liberals ridicule them as democrats and dog-whistle their support for the terrorists who blithely kill them.
It’s odd and kind of sick.
Chicken hawk has also been adopted as a term to describe pro-war conservatives, who gladly watch other people die from behind the comfort of their computer monitors. I can’t imagine a more vile person.
CL,
The elections were a positive. However I also notice the insurgency has not abated, and its a country riven by fairly entrenched differences between the various regions.
They might get it together, but “especially good” reminds me of the view that invading troops would be showered with flowers upon arrival.
Yes, C.L., but to the degree that the race is nationalised the problem for the Republicans is not Rep. X in District Y but the odour coming from Bush/Cheney.
Who are these liberals?
If the results of the Iraqi elections and political process are positive, I shall applaud. This whole question of whether Iraqis are “capable” of democracy is silly – it’s a charge made by Bushies against phantom enemies that they are not. The actual question is whether democracy is possible in the context of a society where infrastructure and security are deteriorating, many of the rules (ie privatisation) are set from outside, and where there are serious divisions between political groups – many of whom don’t accept the others’ legitimacy.
Those are the realities. They won’t go away no matter how often you chant slogans such as “The Iraq War was won”.
Who are these liberals? The growing Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democrats. They regard the “insurgents” as Minutemen. Even Jack Murtha (the war veteran and goose) said he wants to move beyond talk of “insurgents” being terorists.
I agree, David. Anthony Loewenstein is vile.
A bit of conflation there, C.L. If you recognise that the insurgents are separable from Al-Qaeda and Islamists and thus a political solution involving bringing the Sunnis into the political process has more likelihood of success than a military solution involving exterminating terrorists, then you’re just being pragmatic. You seem to deal in rhetorical declarations of victory and hyperbolised oppositions between good and evil and then move on to spraying opponents with vitriol and invective, rather than engaging with the facts.
CL you know full well that the chicken hawk reference has been stuck on the pro war keyboard kommandos, or if you’d like to use another Australian journo, Tim Blair for example.
Just sayin’………for the sake of balance of course.
kim:
“and it’s worth noting that US parties are broad coalitions of different regional and ideological wings, which rarely present coherent programs and messages in Congressional races in the same way that parties in Westminster democracies do”
This may apply to the Repub party. The Dems are no longer a regionalized coalition. The reason is simple. Outside of the two coasts, along with Mich and Illinois the dems can’t be regionally representative because people simply don’t vote for them in the rest of the country. Go take a look at the electoral map. Remember red is repub, blue is dem. Tell me, how much blue you see compared to red? Scary, ha!
How much purple is there, Joe? See this excellent map from Robert Vanderbei at Princeton:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50_small.gif
The point of the map is to show which districts and counties are competitive between Demos and Republicans.
Don’t forget the results in many states in 2000 and 2004 were very close. And we’re only talking about Presidential races here – the Demos hold many Senatorial and Congressional seats in “red states”.
Look, no doubt about it, the US is an extremely complex and surprisingly diverse place. However, I believe the federal sphere is not the only place to look , when trying to figure out the US electoral map. Lets face it, a 55 R/ 45 D senate and R’s holding about 30 seats in the lower house is a good majority but not overwhelming.
However, simply looking at the federal playground doesn’t really show the true essence of the electorate’s leanings. And this is where the Governorships come into play. State Governorships, which the R’s hold by a majority of 28 to 22 have a very important bearing in the national races. That’s because the Federal structure very much relies on the states to help elect a president of the same party. It’s vitally important! Think campaign funding and its organization- are principally done at the state level. A Governor has strong pull when money is an issue. Lot’s of Dem governors also play the game as though they are Republican as it is the only way they can win office in most states. Left leaning Governors have a hard time gaining office. In fact I can’t think of one strong left Dem Governor, not one, Hawaii aside.
To be perfectly honest, my guess is that Bush held back the Republican victory in the US for both 2000 and 2004. The reason is that his communication skills are less desirable to what you would expect in the presidential aspirant because, after all, what can a candidate do other than talk his way in to office. There have been times I have literally winced as he speaks. That’s not saying I think his executive presence hasn’t been effective, it has. But his ability to articulate his views are left wanting, even compared to dad and that’s saying something.
My point is that if Bush was a better communicator, he could have won by wider margins.
The country is mostly Republican by a good margin.
The days of strict partisan loyalty in any given region or location are long past, if they ever existed in substance, but examining voting patterns according to the election under discussion remains entirely relevant. Many areas vote differently between executive and legislative branches on the local, state, and federal levels, mixing the results in a way that seems counterintuitive. Thus NYC has a Republican mayor but a Democratic council, and many state governments, including that of New York, show a similar pattern. Their federal representation, however, more generally seems to follow their overall preference for the executive, so that states with largely Democratic congresspersons tend to favor the same party’s Presidential candidate. Red State/Blue State, aside from making a nice Dr. Suess parody, really only holds true to any statistical significance in respect to the White House. The country isn’t “mostly Republican” except in the Republican’s imagination. It’s really much more centrist, although easily swayed by the prevailing conditions at Election Day.
I agree with Phillip Gomes. The American political scene has become militarized, and it seems as if one must expose their wounds in order to be elected. Even if one has been a community organizer or a Univeristy professor, they are not considered a candidate for office because they have not “served” their country. I find it insulting.
Duckworth is running against a progressive whose politics are very much in tune with Canada’s NDP and therefore offensive to the Democratic party in the US. Her name is Christine CEGELIS, and the Democrats in Washington, DC, who are much more Centrist and conservative in the eyes of internationals, decided to run Duckworth against her in the Democratic party. Those of us who reside in District 6 find this offensive. For not only did we have a progressive candidate who almost won the election in 2004 against an archconservative, but the Democrats in DC are attempting to force a diluted version of the Republican party in Democratic clothing down our throats. And, even worse, they have thrown millions of dollars behind her, reminding us why campaign finance reform is so important in America.
But this is America, and I guess I should accept the power of money and the military. Thankfully, I go to France next year.
So, if any of you have friends in the US who desire to support a progressive, tell them to donate to Cegelis’s campaign at http://www.cegelisforcongress.com. I too am frightened of this militarization of politics.
By the way, Mr. Gomes is HOT!