(The following is cross-posted to The McGehee Zone—but I want people to actually see it, so…)
Seeing the link for this New York Times story on Drudge just crystallized something for me. From the article:
Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.
Shortly after, in a cramped meeting room here, they convene for a call with organizers across the country. They hash out plans for rallies. They sketch out talking points for “rapid response” news conferences. They discuss polls they have conducted in several dozen crucial Congressional districts and states across the country.
Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president’s strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.
But there are tensions in the relationship between the groups, which banded together earlier this year under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and the Democratic leadership. The fissures could be magnified in coming weeks as the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, struggle to cobble together a strategy after President Bush’s veto of the $124 billion Iraq spending bill that tied the money to a timetable for withdrawal.
There is nothing new about this, really. Anti-war groups have been a core constituency for the Democrats since the 1960s. They had been sufficiently co-opted by the ‘90s that Bill Clinton could use U.S. troops for such unilateral adventures as the Kosovo fight (he didn’t even have UN approval, the cowboy!) without so much as a peep—but this is parallel to the way feminist groups had been so co-opted that they defended Clinton against substantiable allegations of precisely the kind of sexual harassment previously said to be the worst possible: that of a powerful man toward a female subordinate.
But Bill Clinton is no longer president, and his successor is a Republican, so of course the anti-war constituency within the Democratic Party is once again anti-war; and now that both houses of Congress are held by the Democrats, that once-again-anti-war anti-war constituency expects Congress to do anti-war things.
On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.
“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush—passing a bill without measures to end the war—the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”
They are creating a public image for the Democrats that the party had already expended a quarter-century in overcoming before Clinton made it to the White House. Clearly, convincing these groups to keep a low profile for the sake of the party was not a long-term solution, since they now expect their forbearance to be compensated. Nor do Reid and Pelosi have the political clout as congressional leaders, nor for that matter the leadership ability, to resurrect that forbearance even if there were the slightest chance such an attempt could succeed—Bill Clinton himself couldn’t do it now even if he could somehow resume the presidency as part of the deal. There really isn’t anyone who could.
Which means the Democrats have only one choice. They have to call the anti-war crowd’s bluff and tell them to shut up or take a hike. After all, if the Democratic Party doesn’t pander to them, where will they go?
Yes, I—a conservative who plans to deny John McCain my vote if he is the GOP nominee in 2008—do recognize the irony in that rhetorical question, and I realize that if the anti-war netroots and their sympathizers don’t get their way they may very well stay home on Election Day themselves, hurting the Democrats’ electoral chances. And as a Republican I acknowledge that I wouldn’t be unhappy with that result. There’s just one thing, though:
The anti-war constituency’s clout in the Democratic Party is based on a single issue on which its members hold extreme views, which distinguishes it from the conservative wing of the Republican Party which covers a wide range of issues on which most of the views are well within the nation’s political mainstream.
When Republican leaders offend conservatives, they suffer badly at the polls.
If Democrat leaders had the courage to offend anti-war groups, it could actually help their party. In the long run, I’m sure of it.
But as long as Pelosi and Reid are the party’s most visible leaders, the anti-war fringe will increasingly define the Democratic Party. And that hands the advantage to a GOP that I think most people recognize is itself increasingly unfit except on questions of national defense.
Members of the anti-war constituency are not the only single-issue voters at play in upcoming elections; they are vastly outnumbered by those who believe this war—the larger war to defend civilization, not necessarily just the one in Iraq—must be won even at the expense of controlling federal spending or re-regulating abortion or even fighting illegal immigration. And the Democratic Party that ascended to power in Congress as a result of the 2006 elections is increasingly demonstrating that it cannot be counted on to fight the larger war to victory.
Only when the Democrats realize that surrender is not a winning electoral platform will they ever be able to achieve any lasting electoral success.
I won’t say now is as good a time as any, because tomorrow is not as good a time as today, and the day after that even worse.
Update: Added a clause in the third-to-last paragraph to clarify what war I’m talking about.
Yeah, McGehee, but they all hope to use the nutroots as a first-stage booster, then move to the middle. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
That’s, you know, forward thinking.
Fixed that for you.
Heh. Thanks, B Moe.
Poetic, and upon which I will think: but if tomorrow is not as good a time as today, and the day after that even worse, it would seem that now is as good a time as any.
Your point is well-founded, however. But I am not sure I will vote for a pro-abortion “choice” candidate even if he/she is strongly pro-national defense. We must see.
No, it’s better than any other time available. Unless one includes “better” in one’s definition of “as good.” I suppose most might.
Which would merely mean that, on the war at least, you’re not a single-issue voter. And while single-issue pro-victory voters outnumber single-issue pro-surrender voters (see what I did there? heh), I have no doubt that both are outnumbered by those who may hold very strong opinions either way on the war but vote other issues too.
Point is, if the Democrats want to win by appealing to single-issue war voters, they’ve chosen the wrong side.
A problem the Congressional Democrats have is that they are a bare majority in either house (and a slim plurality in the Senate). They cannot go to an extreme that their most vociferous supporters want and get anything passed unless they so load up the pork-train that the bridges give out.
They have power, and that means they have to come up with something more than back-bench snark and sniping, yet they do not have enough to actually put the extreme anti-war agenda through the legislature.
A cleft stick, and they are welcome to sit there and enjoy their perks.
The article shows exactly who the demorats bow to. The might anti-american crowd. Isn’t that a shame. Too bad few Americans will read the article and find out what they put into office. It isn’t pretty.
The article seems to gloss over the “organized labor” part of the coalition, mentioning only the SEIU by name. The SEIU *owns* Nevada, more or less, and Harry Reid’s son has signed on as Hillary’s chairman for the state.
What’s a little pikachu to do? Myself, more shopping at Trader Joe’s (nonunion) and a lot less at Ralph’s (strike-prone Kroger subsidiary). Still brooding on the new car…
happyfeet,
Non-union or not, TJ’s is miles ahead of anything Kroger ever put out. Two-buck Chuck for everyone!
I prefer the Charles Shaw Cabernet. As long as it’s 2006 or later.
This is cheering, in context… From the NYT, Jan 26, 2007 (no link)…
and something to keep an eye on…
God, I hope you’re right about that. But with news like this and this, I’m not especially hopeful.
Right back at ya babe. I think most people recognize McGehee is increasingly unfit. I can say that because I don’t know you and I’m too lazy to find out. Just like you’re too lazy to find anything good to say about the GOP. Well, fuck you! American soldiers are fighting and dying and you’re gonna stay home on election day because you don’t like McCain and because you accept the MSM view of the GOP. Conventional wisdom? No, conventional stupidity. How about if instead you sacrifice one of your fucking noble principles and support the troops by voting for a commander in chief that actually does support the troops instead of letting an anti-war Democrat “support the troops”.
I don’t like McCain either. I’ll be voting for someone else in the primary. But I will hold my nose and vote for McCain in the general election if necessary because I am not a selfish, self centered, self righteous, stupid prick like you*.
*I guess I do know something about you after all.
OK, now that I’ve got the verbal abuse out of my system I have a real question for you McGehee. Is there any issue, any issue at all, of which you agree more with the position of any of the leading Democrats than with the position of John McCain? I know you can come up with some where their positions are equally bad but the question is on what issue is McCain worse. Where do you agree with the Democrat more? Because if there aren’t any issues like that, your decision to not vote for McCain no matter what is not based on issues. Is it?
….naw, not worthy of a response.
Yep, not even worth thinking about.
Ah, I love the smell of a nutroots action alert in the morning!
Remind me again, what did the federal budget grow to under a GOP house and senate? How many conservative judges were appointed by a GOP senate? How many clearly unconstitutional finance campaign reform (hack, hack, cough, cough) bills were passed with the name of McCain on it?
Sorry, John McCain is a loose cannon that really doesn’t much seem to believe in a whole lot of what conservatives and a majority of GOPers believe in. RINO just scratches the surface.
Real old testement stuff, right Bob? The GOP cut taxes but not spending so off with their heads. “Only” Alito and Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court so Republicans must have been phoning it in. Right, Bob? Do you like the Democratic Congress you have now, Bob?
How much more do you want to pay in taxes, Bob? How many more judges like Ginsburg do you want, Bob? Are you a complete idiot, Bob?
I can’t believe you morons have driven me so insane I’m actually defending John McCain. Fuck you.
Well, you just flunked McGehee 101. I don’t like McCain because HE AGREES WITH AND FEEDS the MSM view of the GOP.
I don’t need to agree with them more—the problem is that I don’t agree with them less.
Besides, it’s all academic. McCain won’t be the nominee.
I sure hope so. Apparently he’s widely enough disliked that more than a few conservatives like you would want to stay home on election day. And maybe it will all eventually work out for the best anyway if Hillary becomes president. But I’m old enough I don’t want to wait for eventually. I might not live that long.
What the heck, we’re both wealthy, right? We can each just buy an island to move to until things improve back home.
Besides, klfrz1, I live in Georgia, one of the few states where the GOP majority in the Legislature actually increased in 2006. If McCain or anybody else needs my vote to win Georgia in 2008, we’ve got bigger problems than how I feel about John McCain.
I wish somebody would tell him—then we could both stop worrying about it. The man will be 73 in 2008 and we both know he’s no Reagan. Also he’s been in the Senate for going on 25 years—nobody who has sat in the Senate longer than eight years at the time of the presidential campaign has ever been elected president.
He’s the least electable Republican in this race, and if not for Kucinich I might say the least electable candidate regardless of party.
Now. There are at least two or three sentences in the original post that aren’t about John McCain. Anyone here interested in arguing about one of them?
The biggest problem would be if large numbers of conservatives stay home. But you didn’t say you’d stay home. So maybe you’re not a complete selfish, self centered, self righteous, stupid prick. On the other hand if McCain (or whoever) is going to win Georgia anyway, what harm would it do for you to vote for him?
The reason McCain has a chance to win the Republican nomination is because the MSM has pumped him up for so many years. That hasn’t changed. Once he’s the nominee though, wham! The MSM will fall on him like a ton of bricks. But also like you said in your post, the anti-war Democrats could be looking so bad McCain might still have a chance to be elected. I hope at that point you will reconsider just how bad a Hillary presidency might be.
What good would it do for me to vote for him?
No need. She won’t be nominated either.
Now, again. The McCain comment in my post was an aside. Did you even read the rest of it? Do you have anything to say about the rest of it?
McGehee:
Oh, they have the courage. As in, after that boost phase is over and they’re running toward the center, they will make a show of taking some position that pisses off the worst of the nutroots.
But my guess is, the purpose will not be to do what’s right, but to be seen as strong and independent. Just as HRC voted to authorize the Iraq war not to be strong on national security, but to be seenas strong on national security.
What they won’t do is to offend the antiwar groups incidentally, as Lieberman has so thoroughly done, by taking a position they hate, without regard to what they think.
Every morning, representatives from anutty cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.
It’s from Kelloggs!
Which is exactly what they need to do, and the only thing that will send the message they need to send—not only to the netroots, but to everyone else.
Tacking to the center after the “boost phase” won’t fool anyone, especially if the netroots don’t go ballistic themselves when it happens.
Ad hominem attacks make one unworthy of response.
Especially if one is, additionally, a supporter of enemies of free political speech, like John McCain.
No, I don’t disagree with the rest of your reasoning. Sorry. We can just wait and see what happens.
There, fixed that for you.
Not voting. Brilliant.
A republic, if you can keep it.
On the absurdly unlikely chance that McCain is the GOP nominee, I will vote on Election Day. I will simply not indicate a preference for president, because I will have none.
Furthermore, as someone who has never missed an election, I am all in favor of those who don’t want to vote, not voting. Think about it.
I just think the old math is different than the new math. Margins matter.
Well, if Congress and the legislatures of at least 38 states take Ms. Miles’ counsel and amend the Electoral College out of the Constitution, and if they do it in time to affect the 2008 election, I promise to reconsider.
Just saying… If you think your vote is superfluous now, what’s on the horizon means there will never be a candidate for president that has any reason think otherwise. So, margins matter.
A series of comfortable margins is about all that can take the abolish-the-electoral-college movement off the boil, but a series of comfortable margins in favor of Democrats is not likely to be sufficient, since it is in the nutroots that the heart of this movement beats.
Preview matters too.
Candidates for president already only care about voters in swing states. If the EC goes away they’ll care only about voters in big states like California. In neither case are they likely to care about me here in Georgia. The only way they’ll ever care about every voter is if elections have to be unanimous.
I’m fine with that—politicians “caring” about me makes me grab my wallet and back out of the room.
That horizon, as evidenced by GOP spending in the last Congress, and the domestic policies, by and large, of this administration, is already here.
I don’t think that my vote is superfluous, and never have. I’ve voted in every election (and primary) since I was able to, even the local elections that have little national impact. But it seems the reverse is true, from Party eyes: they apparently think my vote is superfluous since my conservative sentiments have gone largely ignored under the last Congress and even by this President.
If they want to give me more of the same, they can count on my abstention. Otherwise, my vote is superfluous. Apparently they don’t care, and McCain’s part in McCain-Feingold, with all its stupid and unforeseen consequences and speech-limiting regulations is abhorrent. It is as bad as anything liberals – who are openly liberal – do. Better to battle an identified foe than one who says he’s conservative but then supports legislation that tells me to shut up because my betters know better than me!
McGehee:
Nice. Reminds me of an exchange–geez, was it in 1996?–between Phil Gramm and the reporter interviewing him.
Gramm: “So my platform is based on this: That I don’t know what’s best for you; that you don’t care about my kids as much as I do.”
Reporter (hurt): “Yes I do!”
Gramm, after a short pause: “What’re their names?”
Heh…
DUELING CONSERVATIVES IN THE OCTAGON OF DEATH!!!
This must be blowing the minds of the trolls who think that we’re just ‘thuglican/Bush Stepfords!
The pandering to the noisy anti-war minority is going to to wax and wane throughout the primary season as Dem candidates position and respond. To a much lesser extent (except for Romney) the same will be of Reps and the social/Reagan conservatives. Once the primaries are over, the Dem nominee will almost be forced run away from or, at least, ignore the Screaming Cindies. There is no way the American People are going to elect a virulently anti-war candidate regardless of how much money Moveon and Soros spend.
If given a Clinton (or Obama) vs. McCain choice. I will hold my nose, swallow Klonipan and stick needles in my eyes but my vote will go to Jumping John. I simply do not trust any Democratic candidate on the GWOT and al least McCain is pro-life, even though my overall opinion of him is of a feckless meddler.
Someday, maybe, the choices will be more palatable.
In a post on my own blog, remarking on Sarkozy’s election victory, I observed,
Change that last to “duplicitous friends” and it applies to this topic as well.