No. Way. The schism between liberals and blue Dogs within the party and the fact that the Dem never have a clear message and they are going to have to tack hard right in the general will prevent any sort of “clear” message.
Theworldisnotenough on August 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Theworldisnotenough, in this dialog about dialog I hope you are right. Well I know you’re right, what I mean is I hope you are correct. Since we’re talking about clear messages it’s on topic that President Bush just finished a press conference where I found my mind wandering off even when interested in the message.

Please don’t underestimate Rahm Emmanuel. He is the operative that brought us the Mark Foley scandal that neatly wrapped up the 2006 election.

I will remain a skeptic and work at politics as if the issue is in doubt. Hillary can get about 42% of the vote by just showing up, and maybe even 46% if she runs a most excellent campaign. Pretty much everyone paying attention has made up their mind about Hillary. A third party candidate that pulls over 5% from the Republican side could tip the election.

One more thought: A clear message is required only if pushed out through a single channel. The nutroots communicate with a subset of people through different channels from Rahm Emmanuel and the Blue Dogs.

Stay to the right and keep the throttle down.

Theworldisnotenough, I’m with you on the first three but the Democrats are not just going to roll over and admit that they were wrong.

Of course they aren’t going to “admit” they were wrong. They are going to slightly change the narrative over the course of many months you alreay see admitting military progress. Thenext step is to criticize the power grid, then political reconcilliation. One those are solved, or progress is made they wil find something new to complain about and hope America forgets their last three years of rhetoric.

4. Whatever the date of the troop draw down the Democrats go back in history and find one place where they called for that date and pronounce “I told you so.” While Conservatives are muddying the waters by replaying all of the Democrats comments about the war for the previous 3 years, the Democrats pound on the one clear message that there were right back then. Hillary gets close enough to the POTUS to smell it, but only just a tantalizing whiff.

No. Way. The schism between liberals and blue Dogs within the party and the fact that the Dem never have a clear message and they are going to have to tack hard right in the general will prevent any sort of “clear” message. In today’s world where we can replay Hilary and the Democrats mixed self serving obviously political driven messages they do not stand a chance at taking back the White House. Here’s how clear a message they are going to send:

The Dems know they can’t do anything for amnesty so… Rahm Emmanuel announces they won’t until 2012. Why because they know America doesn’t want it and they’ll oust the Dems because of it. But what does Hilary do? Make the poster boy illegal aliens (at least on the West coast) Mayor VillaLaRaza (villaraigosa) one of her campaign co chairs. Is that clear?

Martin O’Malley and Harold Ford Jr. plead for the Dems to take the middle.But Maryland just passed a law allowing in state tuition for illegals, is that what the center wants? Marylanders seem not to want it at all. The same counties, Prince George’s, Montgomery, Baltimore City, that brought Dems victory in 2006 are predominantly Black. Being Black I can tell you the conversations in barbershops across the country is not “hey illegals should get in state tuition.” We see it as another slap in the face. Something else a non American gets that Black people do not. However incorrect the perception may be, in state tuition is no misconception. The Democrats are faced with trying to please Blacks, Hispanics, Liberals, and their center. They can’t do it.

4. Democrat flip flop flip will be complete. Conservatives will be replaying all the Democrats comments about the war from the previous 3 years. Hilary doesn’t even get to sniff the Presidency.

The biggest misunderstanding in the wake of the Democrat wave in 2006 was that it was a sign to withdraw. If it was why are we still there? Democrats have the votes to at least make it symbolic if not veto proof.
Theworldisnotenough on August 8, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Theworldisnotenough, I’m with you on the first three but the Democrats are not just going to roll over and admit that they were wrong.

4. Whatever the date of the troop draw down the Democrats go back in history and find one place where they called for that date and pronounce “I told you so.” While Conservatives are muddying the waters by replaying all of the Democrats comments about the war for the previous 3 years, the Democrats pound on the one clear message that there were right back then. Hillary gets close enough to the POTUS to smell it, but only just a tantalizing whiff.

Democrats have the votes to at least make it symbolic if not veto proof.

The President can’t veto a bill that isn’t passed. All the nutroots want is for the Congress to NOT PASS the military funding. Don’t worry they are just liberal, not stupid.

Well, that’s their point, now.

If it’s broken, that’s Bush.

It it recovers, then the Dems forced him to change Iraq until it worked.

Win-win do-nothing.

The military progress is undeniable, it was undeniable 6 months ago but recent news coverage had to cover the progress that the blogs had been covering for months, so when that happens the party of sticking its finger in the air has to move to the right.

Here’s how the narrative goes.

1. Acknowledge military progress, however grudingly.

2. Complain about the power grid and lack of political progress

3. Military and State Dept contractors upgrade the power grid in the middle of next summer, possibly spring. Spring power would be more exciting having the AC on in Baghdad just before it gets hot.

4. Democrat flip flop flip will be complete. Conservatives will be replaying all the Democrats comments about the war from the previous 3 years. Hilary doesn’t even get to sniff the Presidency.

The biggest misunderstanding in the wake of the Democrat wave in 2006 was that it was a sign to withdraw. If it was why are we still there? Democrats have the votes to at least make it symbolic if not veto proof. They don’t have the guts because they know they do not have the Blue Dogs. After a vote that has the Blue Dogs voting with Republicans and only liberal Dems are left holding the bag and looking like exactly who they are.

What America wants is victory. The vote for Dems was a reaction to “losing.” (that is why “quagmire” was so effective) Now that we are making progress and killing al-Qaeda we are “winning.” That’s what we want to do win. The ghosts of Vietnam will not allow us to just throw in the towel in Iraq. Hilary answer is withdrawing and letting a full blown civil war engulf the country and the region. We do not want that. Democrats overplayed their hand, just like they did the last time they had a majority…

The weakest, most inept, shortest lived majority in recent history. Flip flop flip.

Clark1 on August 8, 2007 at 1:52 PM

that had to be the funniest part of the clip , hold on wait its working but if i had my way it would have never been tried.

I am sure if FDR had these surrender monkey traitors this congress in Washington.
We would all be speaking German and there would be a defiant shortage of jews right now.

{yes i borrowed that line from the patton clip}

Remember in April when Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid said of the war in Iraq that “this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything”? Remember in June when Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote to the president……

Ya thats the ticket.

But that’s unlikely to get better in the near term and likely to get considerably worse.

There’s always talk about “national reconciliation”, but don’t we want more “grass roots” approach? I keep hearing about political progress being key to the “surge”, but I don’t believe that a national front is the objective. In America’s own history, we used to place emphasis on the state until modern times when the government has taken over as the nanny power.

The biggest thing we need out of Iraq is an Articles of Confederation. National reconciliation between factions and tribes can come later if they ever get over greed and incompetence at the federal level.

But what do I know- we live in a country were half scream “it takes a village”.

Video: We’re making military progress, says … Dick Durbin?

Durbin,

Expect your “go f**k yourself” from Kos for these comments, just as you got when you (non)apologized for comparing Gitmo troops to Nazis… and expect a “go f** yourself” from me the rest of the time.

Am I crazy, then, to think that Iraq, with billions of dollars pouring into the country and an unrelenting sun, would be a good place to deploy neighborhood and/or household solar panels?

Not sure about home use, but the US military has been installing solar lampposts in at least some of the cities and neighborhoods being cleared by the “surge.”

I’m personally not very concerned that the politicians took a break. The political process is two-way, not one-way. A successful surge allows the bottom-up process a chance to work, to create demand for government services. Micheal Yon just did a great piece on the Baquba food convoy into Baghdad, that broke hard ground between two governmental agencies.

The milestones were meant to measure progress on the old and discredited Bremer top-down plan. Now we have a new bottom-up plan and we are about to use the same old goalposts.

Durbin may be a (ok be nice) but he knows about selecting just the right measuring stick to get the results he wants. And he wants failure in Iraq.

Condoleezza Rice knows. She used the phrases top-down, and bottom-up and the word measure in the same response last Sunday morning with Chris Wallace.

Follow the last link and read Bill’s thoughtful analysis about the six-month window we’re looking at, noting especially his point about translating the Anbar military gains into provincial political gains.

When I do, the notion that the failure of the political process as “entirely true and entirely undisputed” starts to look like a possibly temporary thing.

Moreover, Nibras Kazimi recently suggested that the failure of the political process is at least partially a product of the success of the “surge” and the spread of the “Awakening” movement there. The more sectarian Sunni blocs thought the insurgency gave them political leverage. The defeat/turning of insurgent groups takes away that leverage, for which boycotts (and the impact the perceived political failure will have in the US) become the substitute leverage. Kazimi also suggests Maliki may use the situation as an opportunity to bring the tribal sheikhs in as partners instead.

And it leads me now to the conclusion that this probably was a mission impossible from the start because of the fissured society and because of the deeply wounded psyche of that society. They had been bludgeoned, mercilessly bludgeoned, for — we say 24 years of Saddam Hussein, but under the Baath Party for 30 years.

Hey genius, you overlooked the other 1200 years of bloodshed and turmoil, didn’t ya? Oh, I know, we thought for a while we might have had success based on the brokered peace between Israel and it’s Arab neighbors in recent years. That worked out well, huh?

History books people. History books.

[Fade to Newt]