|
Democrats’ Recess Playbook: No Plans, No Agenda, Just Political Games
Minority Leader Reid Orders His Caucus To Unleash “Aggressive” Political Attacks Next Week On Security Issues
March 17, 2006 - Despite Having No Agenda, Reid And His Democrats Plan To Go On The Attack Over National Security Issues During Next Week’s Recess. “Despite internal conflicts over his party’s broader message on national security, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has instructed Caucus members to hold a series of in-state events criticizing President Bush’s security, war and veterans’ spending plans during next week’s St. Patrick’s Day recess, according to an internal planning document obtained by Roll Call.” (John Stanton, “Democrats Plan Aggressive Recess,” Roll Call, 3/15/06)
Anonymous Democrat Aide, On Reid’s Plan: “They’re Not Letting Up On This For A Second.” “Reid has tasked his Caucus with ‘aggressively hitting’ security issues, the aide said, adding ‘they’re not planning on letting up on this for a second.’” (John Stanton, “Democrats Plan Aggressive Recess,” Roll Call, 3/15/06)
* A Footnote: On Wednesday, Reid Was One Of Only Eight Senators To Vote Against $978 Million For Increased Port Security. The overwhelmingly bipartisan amendment dedicates almost $1 billion toward “improved data for targeted cargo searches and full background checks and security threat assessments of personnel at our nation’s seaports.” (S.Con.Res. 83, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 90-8: R 54-0; D 35-8; I 1-0, 3/15/06, Reid Voted Nay)
Reid’s Office Is Handing Out Talking Points And “Possible Ways To Stage An Event.” “In the recess-event packet … Reid war room aide Rebecca Kirszner argues that ‘since next week marks the third anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, it is more important than ever for us to focus on security – at home and abroad. … The packet includes a brief synopsis of party talking points on the issue and guidance on possible ways to stage an event as well as follow-up efforts with local media.” (John Stanton, “Democrats Plan Aggressive Recess,” Roll Call, 3/15/06)
Democrats Implausibly Claim The President Adopted Their “Position” On Iraq
The Democrat “Message”: President Bush Is Adopting Their Position On Iraq. “[D]emocrats are honing a message that the Bush administration, with its new talk on Iraq, is finally coming around to their position on the war.” (Erin Billings, “Democrats Play Offense On Iraq,” Roll Call, 3/15/06)
Problem: Democrats Don’t Have A Position On Iraq … Or An Agenda For America
Back In December, Reid Had To Urge His Colleagues To “Limit Their Comments” On Iraq. “The discord grew so great last week that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, urged his fellow Democrats to ‘limit their comments’ on Iraq to areas where there was general agreement in the party.” (Donald Lambro, “Anti-War Drumbeat Dividing Democrats,” The Washington Times, 12/11/05)
As “A Strategic Decision,” Democrats Agree “There Will Not Be A Unified Position On Iraq.” “‘There’s been a strategic decision,’ said a senior Congressional Democratic source. ‘There will not be a unified position on Iraq and therefore – since we need an aggressive stand on security issues – we need to focus on the other issues that we can unify around.” (Erin Billings, “Democrats Retool Security Stance,” Roll Call, 2/21/06)
* No Plan: “[S]ources say Democratic leaders know they will never find a singular Iraq policy around which to rally…” (Erin Billings, “Democrats Retool Security Stance,” Roll Call, 2/21/06)
* No Position: “[House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda … but it will not include a position on Iraq.” (Dan Balz, “Pelosi Hails Democrats’ Diverse War Stances,” The Washington Post, 12/16/05)
* No Agreement: “During the State of the Union, when Bush said that America was in Iraq to win, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein stood and clapped while Reid stayed in his seat.” (Dick Polman, “GOP Bright Spot: Democrats,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/6/06)
* No Clue: “Congressional Democrats have been split over the war since 2002, when many voted to authorize military action.” (Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington, “Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity,” The Washington Post, 3/7/06)
Democrats Split On Whether Or Not Iraq “Should Even Be Talked About.” “While the Democrats are united in a desire for a strong message on national security, they are divided over what to do about American military involvement in Iraq – and whether the issue should even be talked about. … ‘The second we get in a debate about do we stay or do we go from Iraq, we lose,’ [former DNC chair Terry] McAuliffe said.” (Roger Simon, “Bush Perceived Blunders on Iraq, Katrina Buoy Democrats in 2006,” Bloomberg, 3/7/06)
Strategist Bob Shrum: “True, We Don’t Have A Clear Message On The War.” (Roger Simon, “Bush Perceived Blunders On Iraq, Katrina Buoy Democrats In 2006,” Bloomberg, 3/7/06)
Democrats’ Attempt At A Coherent Message Restricted By The Fact That They Have No Leadership. “Democrats … said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.” (Adam Nagourney and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities,” The New York Times, 2/8/06)
Political Analyst Charlie Cook: Democrats Must “Articulate Some Kind Of Vision.” COOK: “[T]here’s a danger of Democrats looking always like they are carping. It’s important for them to articulate some kind of vision.’” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Democrats Outline Agenda, Mostly Sparing The Specifics,” The New York Times, 1/27/06)
* Jennifer Duffy Of The Cook Political Report: “Democrats argue that they can do better, but they don’t have a plan or a message that tells voters how they intend to do better.” (Brett Lieberman, “Casey, Swann Challenge Incumbents With Silence,” Harrisburg Patriot-News, 3/4/06)
Democrats Realize That Together, They Need To Do Better. “Democrats have spent recent months upping their attack on the Bush administration for its policy failures … That effort came after a broad realization within the party that Democrats must do better to change public perceptions of their defense credentials…” (Erin Billings, “Democrats Play Offense On Iraq,” Roll Call, 3/15/06)
While Reid And Others Focus On Staged Events And Talking Points, The Hard Work Of Democracy Continues
Iraq’s Parliament Convened For The First Time On Thursday As Elected Members Were Sworn Into Office. “Iraq’s new parliament met for the first time Thursday under extraordinary security after a delay of three months caused by political haggling over the formation of a government. … Police reported no major outbreaks of violence in Baghdad as Parliament convened and was officially sworn-in for its four-year term…” (John Ward Anderson and Omar Fekeiki, “Iraq’s New Parliament Holds First Session,” washingtonpost.com, 3/16/06)
* The Occasion Marked The “First Permanent, Democratically Elected” National Assembly Since The Fall Of Saddam Hussein’s Dictatorship. “The meeting was also important symbolically. The 275-member National Assembly is Iraq’s first permanent, democratically elected Parliament since the 2003 U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.” (John Ward Anderson and Omar Fekeiki, “Iraq’s New Parliament Holds First Session,” washingtonpost.com, 3/16/06)
Washington Post Columnist David Ignatius: “Pessimism Isn’t Necessarily The Right Bet For Iraq.” “The Iraqi political dialogue will move into a new and potentially fractious stage soon, when the leaders begin bargaining over who will hold top positions in the new government. Those negotiations could blow apart the fragile hopes for a unity government. But, for a change, pessimism isn’t necessarily the right bet for Iraq.” (David Ignatius, Op-Ed, “Steps Toward Unity in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 3/16/06)
* Ignatius: “[T]here are unmistakable signs here this week that Iraq’s political leaders are taking the first tentative steps toward forming a broad government of national unity…” (David Ignatius, Op-Ed, “Steps Toward Unity in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 3/16/06)
Yesterday The White House Released Its Latest National Security Strategy—A 49-Page Blueprint For Fighting Terror And Making The World More Peaceful. “The White House officially released the 49-page National Security Strategy today. … [The strategy] serves as a guidepost for agencies and officials drawing up policies in a range of military, diplomatic and other arenas.” (Peter Baker, “Bush Restates Terror Strategy,” washingtonpost.com, 3/16/06)
The Administration Reaffirmed Its Policy Of Taking Aggressive Action Against Terrorists And Hostile States. “President Bush issued a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons… [The document] lays out a robust view of America’s power and an assertive view of its responsibility to bring change around the world.” (Peter Baker, “Bush Restates Terror Strategy,” washingtonpost.com, 3/16/06)
* President Bush: “We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy.” (Peter Baker, “Bush Restates Terror Strategy,” washingtonpost.com, 3/16/06)
###
|
|
