Rewriting Liz Sidoti: "Democrats Lack Unified Position on Iraq"

First, the title:
Sidoti: "Democrats Lack Unified Position on Iraq"
Rewrite: "Democrats Offer a Range of Proposals on Iraq."

Sidoti: "The only position Democrats seem to share is that Bush's current strategy is flawed."
Rewrite: "Democrats share the position that Bush has no workable strategy."

Sidoti: "Otherwise, they have widely disparate views about how — and when — to get out of Iraq, raising the question of whether the lack of a unified message could hinder Democratic efforts to turn Bush's woes and mounting public frustration about the war into liabilities for GOP candidates during congressional elections next fall."
Rewrite: "They offer a wide range of strategies about how -- and when -- to get our of Iraq, raising the question of whether Democrats' concrete alternatives will increase mounting public frustration about the war and heighten liabilities for GOP candidates -- who offer no new strategies -- during congressional elections next fall."

Sidoti: "But Democrats also don't have one standard-bearer to look to for direction, unlike the Republicans, who have the president."
Rewrite: "Democrats have outspoken leadership in the House, the Senate, and among military veterans, unlike the Republicans, who feel pressure to line up behind an unpopular president."

Sidoti: "Unlike the Republican fissures, Democratic differences have been prominently on display in recent weeks."
Rewrite: "Unlike the Republican fissures, Democratic differences have been prominently reported in recent weeks, although they seem not to have created crises or animosity within the party."

Sidoti: "Other Democrats offered varying positions last week."
Rewrite: "Other Democrats offered their own proposed strategies last week."

Sidoti: "Democrats dismiss the notion that the lack of a unified party position on Iraq will hurt the party as it seeks to reclaim Congress in 2006."
Rewrite: "Democrats note that they are offering a range of proposals, any of which would be an improvement over the stagnant GOP idea of "staying the course" -- a course a majority of Americans recognize is not working. They dismiss the notion that Democrats offer no ideas of their own."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051203/ap_on_re_us/democrats_iraq;_ylt=Auwi0ZzGGr_Vtq.k.vCEhWKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

n/t

This one gets my vote. Nominated.

there are DU'ers who continue to push the idea that we are a "big tent" on Iraq and the Party can support a diversity of ideas ... if you look carefully at those supporting this position, and i say this meaning no disrespect, the "we're all in this together" people are mostly supporters of one of the prominent potential '08 candidates ...

it seems like very few of those making the case that it's fine to have widely divergent positions within the party are strongly supporting the "out now" idea or Murtha's resolution (at least not as a first choice) ...

but i see a HUGE difference between Murtha's plan and the Democratic plans pushed most notably in the Senate ... the primary issue is NOT about the length of time for withdrawal although that is a significant issue ... Murtha's plan calls for an IMMEDIATE TERMINATION of Congressional authorization for continued operations in Iraq (or words to that effect)... it essentially is a REPEAL of the IWR ... Murtha would like to see the troops withdrawn from Iraq in not more than 6 months ...

The Senate plans all seem to be contingent on "benchmarks" ... they seem to be planning on making progress in Iraq and achieving some form of positive results BEFORE troops can be withdrawn (i.e. phased out) ... regardless of whether this is your view or not, i don't have any confidence that bush and rumsfeld will ever achieve anything positive in Iraq ... for you to agree with the idea of a phased withdrawal based on the achievement of benchmarks, you have to believe something positive can or will be achieved with bush and rumsfeld running the show ... it just doesn't make any sense to me regardless of what anyone hopes might happen ... i think they're making the situation in Iraq worse, not better ... and i'm not willing to support ideas that make troop withdrawal contingent on things improving ...

Murtha said "none of the other plans makes any sense to me" ... pushing the "we're a 'big tent' on Iraq and there's lots of room for lots of different opinions" is not going to fly with me and i suspect many other Democrats who cannot understand why anyone would put another ounce of faith in future positive outcomes under this administration ...

and beyond Democrats who will not just "go along" with the Party if future candidates have not supported Murtha's plan or one similar to it, I think the lack of a clear, consistent, party-wide message on Iraq dilutes the Party's effectiveness on this critical issue ... Murtha made a huge splash with his announcement ... the American people are more than ready to respond to a sharp and clear message from the opposition party; the vagueries of the previously offered plans from Reid, Kerry or Clark, however much one might agree or disagree with them, made no such impact ...

the unity being sought is critically important; to pretend that it exists when it does not is of no value ... unity on Iraq must be earned ... instead of pretending we're all OK with any of the "anti-bush" plans, it would be more effective to reach a negotiated "unity of thought" on this issue ... Democratic rah-rah is no substitute for seeking a meeting of the minds ... my "flexibility", in spite of my strong preference for "out now", would be to consider compromises on timeframe but not on contingencies ...

what plan do you currently prefer and where would you be willing to make compromises ???

1. In my view, "rah-rah" would be a lockstep among all Democrats. There's no one position they'd all agree with, and I prefer honesty to that sort of partisan "rah-rah" in this situation. The Democratic Party is a democratic party.

2. "with bush and rumsfeld running the show" -- That's a key factor within your post. We haven't seen any Democratic proposals debated or voted on. Were Democrats in control of Congress, any number of bills could be debated, amended, reconciled, and voted on. That's where consensus occurs, and it won't happen until Congress and/or the White House is Democratic again anyway.

3. Just a little perspective check: Not only is it not realistic for all Democratic leaders and politicians to agree, it's even less realistic for all DUers to agree; and not only is it not realistic to think that if all Democratic politicians and leaders agreed, BushCo's policy would change, it's even less realistic to think that if all DUers agreed, BushCo's policy would change. I'm just sayin'.

4. Consider WHO is "raising the question," as Sidoti says, about how this could hurt Democrats. The whole tone of the article is, typically, negative spin against our party. If BushCo sold the country to China, nuked three US cities and had bestial sex at the Lincoln Memorial, it'd "raise the question: How badly will this hurt the Democrats?" They've done this consistently for five years.

5. First Democrats were criticized for having "no ideas;" now they're criticized for having too many! For an unempowered party, there is nothing to lose in putting out a range of ideas and proposals on Iraq. Some voters may say, "Murtha's proposal is the one I agree with." Others may say, "Kerry's outline makes the most sense to me." And right on down the line. FINE!! What all the proposals have in common is this: Unless Democrats take back control in 2006, there's no way your favored proposal will have a chance in Hell.

6. Having ONE plan or proposal, in addition to looking like lockstep dishonesty, gives the rightwing and its media something to pick apart and "swiftboat." (Such as, "Yeah, but they didn't say what would happen IF blah blah blah...) In this scenario, they are frustrated. Don't like this one? Well, there's this one instead. Problem with that one? Maybe you'd agree with this one...

And THAT, I think, is what's frustrating them.

The point is anti Democratic media spin. That is the focus of this OP and it is brilliant in my opinion. Media spin is an ongoing issue and this is an excellent "hit" on that. We have an infinite number of threads we can use to debate policy on. This thread is not about pretending Democratic unity exists or even arguing that it isn't important to have unity if possible. It is about how the media slips almost naturally into language that casts Democrats in the most impotent light possible.

in fact, if you view the article as "anti Democratic media spin", i think it might be worth re-examining your own objectivity ... i hope you know me well enough to know i don't offer that as a criticism of you or as an insult ...

i just reread the article looking for examples of "anti Democratic bias" ... i see NONE ... i think someone who views pointing out the different Dem positions and suggesting there is a wide range of views as bias might come to the conclusion that there is bias ... but i fully agree with the author ... in fact, i'm not sure any value judgment was drawn about the disparity of views at all ... she somewhat blandly stated that, unlike the republicans, there is no single "leader" of the Democratic position on this issue ... had the author sought to hammer home the idea that a lack of unity is a significant liability, i think she would have concluded the article with something very different from:



to reiterate, i think the OP, not the cited article, is the one with an agenda ... i think you agree with the agenda of the OP which, as i stated, seeks to argue that it is "anti Democratic" to focus on differences (especially in Iraq plans) than on similarities ... i'll go further to say that i think this view is especially prevalent among both Clark, Dean and Kerry supporters and is not popular at all with those who have called for an "out now" policy for a very long time ... it doesn't make me right or you right, it makes us different ...

you know i have the greatest respect for you but i strongly disagree with you and many others who seem to want to emphasize similarities over differences (am i correct about this?) ... i see focussing on our differences as the only path to unity while those who disagree seem to want to emphasize unity even though we are not unified ... i'm frankly sick of the "one more year war pushers" explaining their plans for "success" ... as for missing the main point of the OP, what can i say ... i just don't see the bias in the article; in fact i fully agree with its tone and perspective ... in fact, i would go much further in emphasizing that the intra-party rift better get resolved very soon or we are all going to suffer ... the author said nothing like that ...

OK, I'll get seriously objective for a moment here. I do love the OP of this thread for the way it illustrates how the same reality can be expressed with a different emphasis, leading to a different message. I think it displays that wonderfully. I also think that the media has too frequently taken a state of affairs that is natural for a Party out of Power, namely the difficulty encountered in setting an agenda and/or having that agenda looked at seriously, and misrepresented it instead as a simple lack of vision or mere paucity of ideas on the part of Democrats.

I remember how during the 2004 battle for the White House that no matter what John Kerry said we should do regarding Iraq, the media boiled it down to "that's exactly what George Bush is doing" when it WASN'T exactly what George Bush was doing. Bush was just giving it lip service, or doing it hesitantly or begrudgingly, or undermining his own stated policy, or pretending to do it etc. But Kerry's proposals for Iraq were always represented as being pretty much the same as Bush's. The media representation of the Democratic Party on Iraq is either a picture of a Cindy Sheeham rally, or a cartoon of a Democrat stuttering "But, but, but..." about how they really do but also don't support the President. You may think that is closer to the truth than you are happy with, but at the very least it is a picture intentionally distorted to be unflattering.

Objectively speaking this article is probably not a good case in point of that dynamic, but it is published in a media climate where that dynamic is rampant and so it reinforces that meme even if that is not what it sets out to do. I think I'll post this and then reread your post to see what else to comment on.

i hate most media sources ... at best, they are poorly researched and the tone or message conveyed is sloppy and erroneous without intended bias; too often, as you correctly assert, the bias, whether subtle or overt, is there to serve an agenda other than the truth ...

truly, i hate most media and fully support the observations you made in your most recent post ... but, as you hinted at, i don't think the cited article is biased and, if one were to see bias that i don't see, it would nevertheless NOT be a particularly good example of the breed ...

we face a real tragedy in our country ... it seems most of us are persuaded more by style than substance ... i see that all the time even here on DU ... post about issues, not usually many responses ... post about personalities, the war begins ... i really don't know what the solution is ... we have to find a way to convey important information to the American people ... blaming the media is all well and good; they are badly failing our democracy ...

but somehow, and it gives the media a reason but NOT an excuse for their poor performance, the American people need to make a commitment to dig much deeper on the issues and look beyond personalities and flashy videos ... if we in the vanguard of information dessemination cannot get the American people to rededicate themselves to focussing on restoring and protecting our democracy, we, they, and the nation will soon realize a much darker future in a much darker world ...

And like you I frequently try to give serious thought to issues when I do post. You know what I really think? I think our nation will change for the better when enough Americans come to truly appreciate honesty, and learn how to distinguish it from a con job. I would settle for most Americans learning how to reach a reasoned position on an issue later, if I had to make a choice. If most of the time Americans backed men and women because they recognized that they held sincere positions and tried to legitimately explain them, we would be in a lot better shape than we are in now,and that is without even commenting on any specific issue. I understand that there are a lot of people who sincerely hold stupid and/or dangerous positions, but the greater threat to our Democracy comes from people who flat out get away with lying.

about why I liked the OP of this piece. I am not saying that your initial assumption played no role, just that it wasn't the aspect of the OP that I enjoyed and reacted to. No doubt other views of mine can color how I react also.

WT2 it is the nature of a two party system, which invests all or nothing stakes on achieving majority status over a rival Party, as opposed to a Parliamentary system of government where coalitions are frequently cobbled together from an array of Parties representing different agendas, that it is extremely difficult to achieve a detailed consensus within a major Party on a major issue. Even in a Parliamentary system, frequently back benchers break with their Party while it IS in government, if their votes are not needed to win a Vote of Confidence.

It is much more difficult for a member of Congress to express a viewpoint differing from a sitting President of their own Party on an important matter than it is for a member of Congress to express a differing view on an important matter than that expressed by a fellow Party member also in "the opposition". Still it happens in the majority Party some times anyway. Realistically I do not expect absolute or near absolute unity from the Democrats on Iraq while we are out of power. Framing it as if that represents some type of failure on the part of Democrats is not helpful in my opinion.

I do not think it is helpful when some DLC spokesperson jumps up and says that Nancy Pelosi is advocating "surrender", and I do not think it would be helpful either if some other Democrat jumped up and said that John Kerry or Howard Dean or Wesley Clark is complicit in continuing war crimes as a result of the stances those men have taken, to use your three examples. I think it would be great if all Democrats reached exactly the same position, especially if it were mine. I am all for Democrats trying to find a single voice on Iraq or anything else. I am not for calling it a failure when they are not singing in perfect harmony. I do advocate attempting to hammer out some honest common ground in the varying positions, the stronger the basis of unity the better, but I do not bemoan the reality of a continuing debate.

When all is said and done and all the ultimately decisive stands are taken that finally resolve the situation in Iraq one way or another or another, I do not believe that all Democrats will agree that it was resolved exactly the way that they each individually believe it should have been. But we have much more in common as Democrats than what divides us, and we will understand that then just like I hope we understand that now. So on with the debate and on with our identifying clear meaningful points of unity when and where we can.

i mean that in a good way ... i agree with your goals; i'm not sure we're on a path to achieve them ...

first, let me be very clear on my own position about voting for Democrats as it relates to the Iraq issue ... when '06 and '08 roll around, assuming we are still "stuck" in Iraq, i will not vote for candidates who are still explaining their plans for "success" ... i just can't put on my "go dems" rally cap if that's what's being sold ... would i vote third party or write-in my dog or just not vote? who knows ... i certainly would not vote for either a republican or a Democrat under those circumstances ... i would, of course, continue to support "progressive" Democrats like Jim McGovern, John Bonifaz (running for Sec. of State in Mass) and many others ...

i'm not happy about this state of affairs ... i feel that i am not being represented by my own party ... it is a breath of fresh air, to say the least, to finally be seeing some movement towards my position from many of the House Dems including Murtha and Pelosi ... perhaps, with their voices in our choir, our position will not continue to be ignored by the Party elite ...

but this was a killer section in your post:

I am not for calling it a failure when they are not singing in perfect harmony. I do advocate attempting to hammer out some honest common ground in the varying positions, the stronger the basis of unity the better, but I do not bemoan the reality of a continuing debate.

first, let's scale back the term "perfect harmony" - wasn't that a Coca Cola commercial? ... no one is expecting all to agree with every theme, tone and nuance ... perfection will never be achieved but a "unity of mind", or at least a "pretty damned close", better be achieved ... maybe i'm projecting my own voting strategy (and funding strategy and campaigning strategy) to a wider group than is warranted; maybe not ... i know many strong supporters of the Democratic Party (not DU'ers) who have refused to provide funds because of the Iraq issue ... i have no way of knowing how representative they are ...

and i have no problem either with a "continuing debate" if all voices are allowed to participate ...

that's the real bell-ringer on the issue you raised about hammering out some honest common ground ... i'm very hopeful some process either is occurring or will soon occur to do this; but i haven't seen any movement (have you?) from Dean, Clark or Kerry since Murtha and Pelosi endorsed Murtha's resolution ... in fact, what i have seen is support for Murtha, the man, but a very clear rejection of his ideas about withdrawal of forces ...

the "killer" here is that i don't think the Party's infrastructure provides a vehicle for "hammering out" issues ... yes, perhaps our elected reps do these things behind closed doors and we just don't know about the process ... but i'm skeptical that most of our reps have spent much time with their constituents ... worse yet, i saw a CBS poll that said 73% of Democrats want the war ended ASAP ... i don't believe most Democrats would support the views, regarding withdrawal, that have been promulgated by our Dem Senators or by Dean or Clark ... am i wrong? who knows ... how many DNC surveys have you seen that asked which plan you prefer from those that have been offered by Democrats? is the Party even asking us what we really think? would they change their public positions if they understood that what we want is different from what they have been saying? this is the "killer"; i think most Democrats have been virtually shut out of the discussion ... and that is the ultimate failure; that is not a recipe for electoral success; that is not a path to unity ... ultimately, our divisiveness may not be healed more because of a failure of process than a failure to reach a "perfect consensus" ... it doesn't need to be this way; i'm afraid, however, that today's "debate" is a battle for power rather than a battle for unity ... i sincerely hope i'm wrong about that ...

To really speak to every point you raised here I would need to go back and harvest bits and pieces from a number of other things I've written about at DU, often in reply to one of your posts!

I do think there is more going on behind the scenes inside the Democratic Party regarding stances on Iraq than is in clear view. That doesn't mean that I think everything is being orchestrated with us the last to know, there certainly still are strong differences being hashed out, and that is apparent in public also, but I suspect that Murtha's statement didn't come as as much of a surprise to Democratic leaders as it did to us. I wrote about that in an earlier post I think. Murtha is part of the Democrat's infra structure, on military matters he certainly isn't a back bencher, so I think it is wrong to say that his views won't be present at the blacksmith shop where the "hammering" goes on. Pelosi may bring him as her date even.

Another point I've made before is that the New Iraq government will be elected in less than two weeks now. That is the last of the major scheduled "shoes to drop", and two weeks is virtually no time at all. I expect that a number of Democrats will comment on the situation in Iraq more once the new government of Iraq is in place. Given that Democrats lack the power of the Commander in Chief, or majorities in either House of Congress, there is nothing that they can do to change any course regarding Iraq in less than two weeks. Who will be in control of Iraq's next "government" is a major "data point" and I can understand it if some Democrats want to have that data in hand before they next update their public position on Iraq.

In terms of sending signals to Iraq, I think Murtha did that for all Democrats. That according to Murtha, was a major reason for why he spoke out when he did, so that those in Iraq attempting to pull together a new Iraq government in the weeks ahead will do so with the full knowledge that significant forces are growing in the United States to pull out of Iraq, so no one should over play their hand based on false assumptions of long term American protection.

I know Clark was in the Mid East over the last couple of days meeting with leaders over there. Because of his international contacts Clark is actually able to have a modicum of influence in that region, so what he says in public now could be effected by some balls that may still be in the air.

Bottom line, by July or so the Democratic party will be on the edge of launching into the Fall Congressional campaign. That is when the rubber will meet the road. That is when they need to have their trip as together as they can get it, because that is when the American people will be tuning in expecting to find out where they really stand as a Party, and what changes they will make if they regain a majority in Congress. So back it up. By Spring the internal debates will have to start advancing toward some kind of closure in order for the Fall campaign to be run with a unified message regarding Iraq. To be honest that is when I would actually look for DNC surveys to start reflecting some of the tougher decisions.

when you get some time, i would be interested in your response to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2289456&mesg_id=2289456
the response, thus far, has been underwhelming ... few topics seem more important to me ...

i'm especially interested in the subject with regard to Clark's views on imperialism ... when i asked him about the "oil" issue in Iraq, the essence of his response was that we should have to "pay for the oil" ... i would ask, given the context of the thread cited above, whether the PSAs, as described, comply with Clark's standard of "paying for the oil" or whether the PSAs are raw imperialism ... but i digress ...

I think it is wrong to say that his views won't be present at the blacksmith shop where the "hammering" goes on. Pelosi may bring him as her date even.

i think the landscape has changed radically since Murtha's statement ... it's not clear to me that "hammering" is happening yet ... Murtha said "none of the other plans makes sense to me" ... Pelosi said "Kerry was speaking for the Senate Dems" but she made no effort to reconcile her differences with them ... Senate Dems have strongly supported Murtha but have publically disagreed with his resolution ... maybe "hammering" starts out with everyone entering the ring and displaying their "hammers" ... it doesn't seem clear yet whether they'll be hammering out a compromise or hammering each other ... love the line about Pelosi's date, btw ... it's a great image ...

i agree with you "election as a datapoint" perspective ... we're likely to be in a holding pattern now, at least publically ...

By Spring the internal debates will have to start advancing toward some kind of closure in order for the Fall campaign to be run with a unified message regarding Iraq. To be honest that is when I would actually look for DNC surveys to start reflecting some of the tougher decisions.

yeah, well, what message does that send to those supporting Murtha's resolution?? you're probably right about the timeframes you've described ... at least i have no basis to question them ... but, if the DNC waits until the Spring, "Houston we have a problem" ... turning the issue into a game of political timing is favoring the "let's give the war more time" camp ... the delay is a form of deciding ... and it's not OK ...

the issue i see out of my little window on the world is that the Democratic Party should be putting the issue ahead of the politics ... waiting to implement the process you described until "campaign season" sends a horrible message ... in fact, not only will i have no respect for those who get religion for political reasons, but i think the Democrats will easily, and perhaps fairly, be painted as playing politics with the issue ...

and we need to start educating the American people on what position we arrive at ASAP ... it seems to me we should work towards a unified message and then broadcast it to every nook and cranny of America ... that's the ultimate hammering that is needed so that we can truly rally the American people behind our ideas ... many have said to me that "what can we do; we're not in power?" ... no, we don't have the votes ... but we can have a huge amount of power if we truly lead ... and where are we leading when many of us go off in different directions?? the power available to us is to guide the national consciousness and direct the debate ... the American people are very fed-up with this war ... there is a huge source of energy there that can be mobilized ... waiting until "campaign season", and i truly fear you're correct about this, would be a tragic mistake for the country and a tragic mistake politically as well ...

By the way I was not suggesting that a time line involving Spring would involve "waiting" until then. I was thinking it would more be the obvious "Drop dead" deadline that everyone had to rush to beat. If people intentionally dragged it out until then out of some sense of optimal political timing, that would be deplorable.

The Mid Term Elections loom very big. Republicans may turn on Bush before then, but few will make a 180 degree turn on him before then. Some will start distancing themselves, but they are afraid of alienating their hard right base to the point where they stay home in November also. They certainly don't believe tons of new Democrats will come out to vote for them if they decide to piss off a few fundies. For an Iraq resolution of any sort to pass in Congress this session, it will need near unanimity of Democrats plus some Republican support. Congress will not end the Iraq war during this session. They may move the ball forward, and/or the debate may get framed in a way that allows Democrats to campaign on it for November, but given the science of redistricting to create safe seats, it won't really be an honest National election. It will be decided in 10 Senate races and 50 House races max. That is where the debate will have to play.

1. "i think the OP, not the cited article, is the one with an agenda ... i think you agree with the agenda of the OP which, as i stated, seeks to argue that it is "anti Democratic" to focus on differences (especially in Iraq plans) than on similarities ..."

No, I do not "seek to argue that it is "anti Democratic to focus on differences." Quite the contrary. I think the differences are fine, healthy, honest, and productive. I think it's great that Democrats are offering a range of strategies, options, and proposals -- and, I wish the media would report it along those lines.

2. "i'll go further to say that i think this view is especially prevalent among both Clark, Dean and Kerry supporters and is not popular at all with those who have called for an "out now" policy for a very long time ..."

Since you also say "we need to be unified" and emphasize the importance of focusing on "similarities," I'd suggest that this point of view does nothing to further that "unity." In my view, unity is about accepting -- or at least tolerating -- differences toward a common goal. I didn't say anything about any one Democrat (which is kind of the broader point).

3. "i strongly disagree with you and many others who seem to want to emphasize similarities over differences (am i correct about this?)"

Again, it's the rightwing and its media who tell us the differences are liabilities. I'm not trying to "emphasize similarities," I'm saying the differences are fine.

4. "... i see focussing on our differences as the only path to unity while those who disagree seem to want to emphasize unity even though we are not unified ... "

Fine, so what's the problem with accepting those differences? Why should we be "unified" in lockstep, when we aren't really unified, as you say? I agree that there is no reason to "emphasize unity" when opinions differ.

5. i'm frankly sick of the "one more year war pushers" explaining their plans for "success" ... (snip) "the intra-party rift better get resolved very soon or we are all going to suffer ..."

Oh, I get it. It seems to me that YOU are saying Democrats need to emphasize similarities, by all agreeing with your point of view. If our leaders (and/or we at DU) would just "focus on differences," we could all come around to one point of view and thus start to "focus on similarities." As long as it's your point of view. Well, that would certainly solve everything, wouldn't it?

1. I think it's great that Democrats are offering a range of strategies, options, and proposals -- and, I wish the media would report it along those lines.

With the exception of the following sentence, i don't think the author stated or implied that the divergent views were a bad thing ... this seemed to be the key theme in your post ... the sentence was: "raising the question of whether the lack of a unified message could hinder Democratic efforts to turn Bush's woes and mounting public frustration about the war into liabilities for GOP candidates during congressional elections next fall." ... and this sentence raised a question but did NOT offer a conclusion ... it is the very question you and i are discussing ... i think the diversity of views sends a muddled message to the public and makes Democrats, as an opposition party, less effective ... the point isn't that everyone should just jump to a single view so they could speak with one clearer, stronger and unified voice, the point is that we at least need to set that as a goal and implement a process to achieve that goal ...

2. I'd suggest that this point of view does nothing to further that "unity."

yes, i hear this frequently but i strongly disagree with it ... differences among Democrats on this issue are very deep and very real ... i frankly hate the positions of those who would have us remain in Iraq until certain conditions are met ... i don't believe they will be met - ever ... and i think plans that call for another year or more of war WITH BUSH IN CHARGE are irresponsible pipedreams ... you argue that "tolerating differences" is what unity is all about ... i argue that a PROCESS of negotiation, included all registered Democrats, is the path to unity ... you ask for "tolerance" for views i consider abhorrent? i say no way ... then what? dead end ... the "tolerance" i do have for Democrats who don't agree with me is my willingness to sit down with them and try to negotiate our differences ... my tolerance is for them; not for their current positions on this issue ... i have great respect for many i disagree with; i have no respect for processes that don't allow my views and what i view as the majority view to be represented ...

3. I'm not trying to "emphasize similarities," I'm saying the differences are fine.

that's fair enough ... i did misunderstand you on this point ... i have been debating ad nauseum with those who have argued that the various Democratic plans are very similar ... i think there are huge differences ... i incorrectly projected these previous discussions into my reading of your post ...

as for "differences are fine", that's another matter ... as i discussed above, "differences are fine" IF we can implement a process to work toward compromise ... if the most powerful are able to impose their views, and others don't feel represented, the political impact of our current differences may not end up "being fine" ... let's hope that doesn't happen ...

4. what's the problem with accepting those differences? Why should we be "unified" in lockstep

most of this has been answered above ... that we have drawn different conclusions on events in Iraq and what the policy should be is understandable ... but to remain at an impasse will be damaging for many reasons ... no one is demanding goose-stepping "lockstep" ... but the Democratic Party will not land effective punches that the public can see and understand if the left-side of the brain is calling for a right upper-cut while the right-side of the brain is calling for a left jab ... if the message and the messenger seem confused, the message will NOT be understood clearly by voters we hope to convince ...

5. YOU are saying Democrats need to emphasize similarities, by all agreeing with your point of view.

from my first post in this thread, here's what i said on the issue of negotiation and compromise:

the unity being sought is critically important; to pretend that it exists when it does not is of no value ... unity on Iraq must be earned ... instead of pretending we're all OK with any of the "anti-bush" plans, it would be more effective to reach a negotiated "unity of thought" on this issue ... Democratic rah-rah is no substitute for seeking a meeting of the minds ... my "flexibility", in spite of my strong preference for "out now", would be to consider compromises on timeframe but not on contingencies ...

what plan do you currently prefer and where would you be willing to make compromises ???

"my "flexibility", in spite of my strong preference for "out now", would be to consider compromises on time frame but not on contingencies ...

what plan do you currently prefer and where would you be willing to make compromises ???"

So far I have been pleased with the progress Harry Reid was making. You know an advantage of incorporating "benchmarks" into the picture along with or instead of "schedules" is that they provide a basis for saying, "that's it, this isn't working the way it was presented, all bets are off, this can not succeed". I sense that is how Clark favors setting it up. For example, he suggested as a benchmark that we pull out a certain number of American soldiers when a certain number of Iraq soldiers are trained. Well Bush "claims" that Iraq soldiers are being "trained" all the time. It they are then he would need to withdraw American soldiers all the time. If they aren't then he would have to admit that the underpinnings of his Iraq plan, turning over Iraqi security to Iraqi forces, is fatally flawed.

I am sure that Clark, for one, is eager to get some diplomatic benchmarks inserted into Bush's military centric world also. Democrats presenting specific benchmarks like that for consideration is one way to force a public debate on overall policy. If Republicans vote against them then they are on record opposing the constructive steps that need to be taken in Iraq. That gives Democrats cover for saying "game over, there is no longer any way to succeed in Iraq". The idea of benchmarks is NOT the same as the concept of "Certification", which is where the President gets to certify whether or not country X is in compliance with agreement Y, end of story if Bush says that they are. The proposal that I think is being formed will be of the same cloth as Democratic demands for a full inquiry into if and how intelligence going into Iraq got cooked. The evidence would need to be presented for full review. All of this would be fodder for the fall campaign. Every false assurance or lie given by Bush that flies in the face of what the public will be able to see for themselves helps elect Democrats.

What I always come back to is that Democrats now do not have sufficient power to end this war this year with Bush poised to start withdrawing troops. I fought against the Viet Nam War for 7 years. I fought Nixon getting elected the first time in 1968 and the War was getting a hell of a lot of organized opposition then, I can assure you. Once in power Nixon continued that War until 1974. McGovern ran directly opposing it in 1972 also. It continued. Whatever plan we come up with has to be drawn in such a way that it increases the likelihood that Democrats regain control of Congress in 2006. It may be Murtha's plan, it may be another plan, but it has to work in the context of setting up the Election for Democrats to win. And that means winning some tough races in places where Liberals traditionally do not do well.

I'm not seeking it.

"the unity being sought is critically important; to pretend that it exists when it does not is of no value ..."

Exactly what I'm saying -- there is no need for it, let alone any need to "pretend that it exists."

"unity on Iraq must be earned ..."

Why is it needed?

"instead of pretending we're all OK with any of the "anti-bush" plans, it would be more effective to reach a negotiated "unity of thought" on this issue"

What for? (Not that I even said "we're all OK with any of the 'anti-bush' plans,' btw.)

Again, Democratic leaders could reach a consensus now, but what would happen as a result? The GOP and the rightwing media would have a clear target, and off we go.

No legislation offered by Democrats would make it to debate, let alone to a vote. Nothing would come of it except anti-"The-Democratic-Plan" spin.

DUers could reach this "negotiated unity of thought" with even LESS results.

What's the point?!? It is what it is. Democrats have offered a range of ideas and proposals. It's not a problem, it's not a liability, it's still the problem of the REPUBLICAN party, which has nothing to counter any of those proposals with. Some ring with some voters, others ring with other voters, but it's clear Democrats are offering real, alternative strategies.

OR, we could all harp on how the strategies aren't identical. THERE's a problem worth reporting and repeating.... or not. :eyes:

A little perspective, please.

That you would agree with her proves the point I've often made about the left using right wing talking points that hurt the party as a whole.

We need to be unified? Hey, the left can get unified behind Hillary Clinton any day of the week they want to. No you say??

We need Murtha's plan or one similar to it? Like, "we're all moving in the same direction"? Begin pulling troops out in December? If it helps stem the insurgency, pace the withdrawal to make sure Iraqi security is in place? Compromise by keeping a quick reaction force in Kuwait?

Or is what you really mean that we must unite behind a plan that has the seal of approval of the left on it and no other plan will do.

Politics is NOT a fucking team sport.

"Republicans say blah blah blah. But what's the Democratic message?"

How about " Republicans say only what they're told to say by the RW think tanks. Democrats think independently."

This whole 'debate' about who has the better message is a stupid, distracting obfuscation of the REAL issues. I'm damned glad the Democrats are thinkers.

To be sure, the Republicans walk and talk in lockstep. And they're effective at getting their message out there. But when we're the minority party with absolutely NO power to do anything, I'd rather see a debate of ideas. The more ideas the better.

Sadly, the Three Monkey Media will never tell the whole story. They'd rather do this stupid horserace crap.

Hey Mediamotherfuckers ...... Do your fucking jobs for a change.

Assholes .......

the article clearly said (see below) the republicans are not unified on Iraq ... the author's point, and i agree with it, is that the Democratic position has been more public ... the republicans in Congress are panicking because of the political liabilities the issue may bring in next year's midterms ...

few of them have made speeches from the Senate floor or in the press saying so, however ...

i see no need to "rewrite" the article on the point you raised ...

from the article:

GOP leaders in Congress have lined up behind Bush in rejecting a timetable for withdrawal. But some in their rank-and-file — Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, for one — have started challenging the administration on future U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Other Republicans are questioning the administration's path forward carefully and privately so they aren't perceived as crossing an administration known for demanding loyalty.

"There isn't a unified position in either political party on exactly what to do moving forward in Iraq," said Michael Feldman, a Democratic consultant in Washington.

The title ALONE indicates that the article is in NO way about "Republicans in Congress panicking!!"

It's about what Democrats "lack," and how it could hurt Democrats. Oh, and by the way, a few Republicans have "started challenging" and some are "questioning."

The article is clearly intended to portray "Democratic differences" as a problem.

it raised the question about "whether the lack of a unified message could hinder Democratic efforts to turn Bush's woes and mounting public frustration about the war into liabilities for GOP candidates" ...

it does not say "Democratic differences" ARE a problem ... if i asked the question, would it mean i'm biased against Democrats?? ... the truth is, i actually believe it is a problem unless we start working towards a negotiated compromise ... i think our differences are diluting the Democratic message and lessening our effectiveness as an opposition party ...

what it will end up doing by the time the midterms roll around is making it harder to "nationalize" the election ... with bush as hurting in the polls as he is, nationalizing the election would help Democrats ...

btw, i did not say that the article made the point that "the republicans are panicking" ... that was a point i was making ...

i think you picked the wrong article to make your point about media bias ... i think the article you cited was fair ... look at the first statement in this post from the article ... it talks about 1. bush's woes 2. mounting frustration with the war and 3. liabilities for the GOP ... if you were a right-wing hack are these issues you would choose to raise?????

the author has raised legitimate points about it being harder for republicans to break ranks with an administration that "demands loyalty" ... the implication is that Democrats are freer to express themselves than republicans are ...

the author even included a point you seem to agree with: "Democrats dismiss the notion that the lack of a unified party position on Iraq will hurt the party as it seeks to reclaim Congress in 2006." ... i don't "dismiss this notion" at all but the author did ...

finally, i also agree that the Party that controls the WH generally is able to present a more unified front ... the author stated: "But Democrats also don't have one standard-bearer to look to for direction, unlike the Republicans, who have the president."

i just don't see clear evidence that the author believes divergent Democratic views on the war will hurt the Party ...

It's amazing how slanted every bit of "journalism" is in favor of the GOP these days.

Will you go out with me?

Just absolutely excellent!!

:applause: