January 29, 2007
Are Democrats Surging Out West? Numbers Say No
By Stuart Rothenberg
More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.
After one of the best newspapers on the planet screamed "West Is Going Democrats' Direction" and "Political Shift in Mountain States" in headlines, I figured I'd look at the numbers myself to see how much of an opportunity Democrats have to turn the Mountain West blue, or at least purple.
After dissecting the historical data over the past 25 years and comparing it to election results from the past few cycles, it's very clear that not much is going on. I'm certainly not ruling out changes in 2008 or 2010, and I'm not saying that there have been no changes. But so far, the hype about a shift has overwhelmed the reality.
First, a bit of history. Democratic candidates have done pretty well in the Mountain West in the past couple of election cycles, but that's nothing new. Democrats have had significant successes in the region for many years, so portraying recent results as some sort of breakthrough is flat-out wrong.
Election returns since 1980 show that the Mountain West is really two or even three regions, not one. Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are reliably Republican in most cases, while New Mexico and Nevada are politically competitive. Arizona and Colorado definitely lean Republican in presidential politics but are much more competitive in other respects.
Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States -- Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico -- in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It's true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that's more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region's inherent competitiveness.
New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats' reach in those elections.
Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party's victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming -- five of the region's eight states.
But that's nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that's right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.
In attempting to drive home the point of a realignment, one journalist noted, "In 2000, all eight mountain states had Republican governors; now five governors are Democrats." But why use 2000 as the baseline? In 1984, seven of the eight states had Democratic governors. Using 1984 as the baseline, you could even say the region is moving toward the GOP!
Anyway, if gubernatorial results reflected fundamental partisan strength and the potential of carrying the state in 2008, then Wyoming would seem to be a reliably Democratic state in 2008.
Obviously, it isn't.
How about Senate races? Democrats won a Senate race in Montana, as well as holding onto a seat in New Mexico. But again, winning Senate races in the region is nothing new for Democrats.
In three of the eight Mountain West states, Democrats have won a majority of all Senate elections since 1980. That's right, a majority. They've won six of nine in Montana, six of 10 in Nevada and five of nine in New Mexico. In Colorado, they have won a considerable four of the past nine. Even Arizona has elected Democrats to the Senate in two of the past nine elections.
Forget about that history. If you think Democrats' ability to knock off a politically damaged Republican in the worst Republican environment in 30 years tells you something about a state's or region's political trend, you are free to. Of course, you would be terribly wrong.
But what about Congress? Didn't Democrats make gains in the House in the Mountain West?
Sure, but what kind of gains?
Democrats netted three House seats in November, one in Colorado and two in Arizona. The Colorado district was drawn to be politically competitive, but it was also referred to as the "Perlmutter district," after the Democratic legislator who was expected to run -- and win -- in 2002. Ed Perlmutter passed then, but he won the open seat last year.
One of the Arizona districts already was competitive, but became hard for the GOP when an anti-immigration bomb-thrower won the party's primary. In other words, if you focus only on the numbers, you will miss the story.
How about state legislatures in the region? Democrats made small gains in the Idaho, Colorado and Arizona state Houses. No chambers in the region switched control, however, except the Montana House, which went from a 50-50 tie to a one-seat GOP majority. Again, if there was a Democratic surge in 2006, you'll have to look under the rug to find it.
There were, of course, some Democratic gains in 2006. Much of the hype, I suspect, came from stronger than usual (though unsuccessful) Democratic efforts in House races in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as a lot of buzz about the Idaho gubernatorial race. But those showings occurred in a landslide year for Democrats, making the results more likely to be an aberration rather than a trend.
The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.
Ronald Wilson Reagan
America's 40th President
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
AP: "Lieberman may back Republican in 2008"
Lieberman may back Republican in 2008
WASHINGTON - Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 who won re-election as an independent last year, says he is open to supporting any party's White House nominee in 2008.
"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.
"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.
Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.
Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, "Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."
He added, "I am genuinely an independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."
The senator said he wanted to select someone "I believe is best for the future of our country. ... Party is important, but more important is the national interest.
And that's the basis that I will decide whom to support for president."
Lieberman spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
WASHINGTON - Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 who won re-election as an independent last year, says he is open to supporting any party's White House nominee in 2008.
"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.
"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.
Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.
Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, "Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."
He added, "I am genuinely an independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."
The senator said he wanted to select someone "I believe is best for the future of our country. ... Party is important, but more important is the national interest.
And that's the basis that I will decide whom to support for president."
Lieberman spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Jim Webb's Response: Pro
January 25, 2007
Jim Webb: Reagan Democrat
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall'') Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the
Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, you can't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
There was no mush from Webb. On the contrary, he tried only to make his two points, on Iraq and inequality, and showed what he was upset about.
Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on, and that the wrong side is winning it.
"When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did,'' Webb said. "Today, it's nearly 400 times.''
OK, that's a standard sort of line from your standard progressive speech. But then came this arresting sentence: "In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.''
Examine that closely. How many politicians out there raising campaign contributions from rich people are willing to use "boss,'' instead of a more respectful locution?
And by talking about the time it takes someone to earn a buck, Webb makes it impossible for anyone to forget how vast the inequalities in our society have become.
Webb knows who he is fighting for. "We're working,'' he said, "to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.''
On Iraq, Webb did not mince his words about Bush's responsibility. "The president took us into this war recklessly,'' he declared.
Instead of qualifying this strong statement, Webb backed it up: "He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command. ...'' The list more than supported Webb's next thought, that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.''
OK, even Webb held back on a couple of politically sensitive points. He offered workers an all-purpose promise on the trade issue that so divides his party. "Government," he said, "has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.''
And, yes, he simultaneously came out against "a precipitous withdrawal'' from Iraq and in favor of "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.'' Philosophers and lexicographers might debate the difference between the words "precipitous'' and "short order.''
But Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their mind. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Jim Webb: Reagan Democrat
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall'') Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the
Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, you can't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
There was no mush from Webb. On the contrary, he tried only to make his two points, on Iraq and inequality, and showed what he was upset about.
Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on, and that the wrong side is winning it.
"When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did,'' Webb said. "Today, it's nearly 400 times.''
OK, that's a standard sort of line from your standard progressive speech. But then came this arresting sentence: "In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.''
Examine that closely. How many politicians out there raising campaign contributions from rich people are willing to use "boss,'' instead of a more respectful locution?
And by talking about the time it takes someone to earn a buck, Webb makes it impossible for anyone to forget how vast the inequalities in our society have become.
Webb knows who he is fighting for. "We're working,'' he said, "to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.''
On Iraq, Webb did not mince his words about Bush's responsibility. "The president took us into this war recklessly,'' he declared.
Instead of qualifying this strong statement, Webb backed it up: "He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command. ...'' The list more than supported Webb's next thought, that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.''
OK, even Webb held back on a couple of politically sensitive points. He offered workers an all-purpose promise on the trade issue that so divides his party. "Government," he said, "has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.''
And, yes, he simultaneously came out against "a precipitous withdrawal'' from Iraq and in favor of "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.'' Philosophers and lexicographers might debate the difference between the words "precipitous'' and "short order.''
But Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their mind. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Jim Webb's Response: Con
OnPoint:
Sen. James Webb is the toast of Democrats and their allies this week for his impressive response to the State of the Union speech - impressive in terms of rhetoric and delivery, if not always content.
Webb was eloquent in denouncing Bush's policy in Iraq, although his perspective is now the distilled consensus of most Democrats and many other Americans. More curious was his take on the economy, which amounted to another version of presidential candidate John Edwards' "two Americas" theme.
Webb's America is a portrait from Upton Sinclair - a place with a fantastically wealthy overclass lording it over the struggling masses, who are steadily ground down to despair. The middle class, "our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," Webb maintained, while promising to address the "economic imbalance in our country."
Factually, the idea of a vanishing middle class is rubbish - populist folklore and little more. By any reasonable standard, most Americans are easily better off than they were 30 years ago - and the economy continues to hum. Yes, there is a fantastically wealthy elite - not just in corporate board rooms but in entertainment, sports, the media, and several other nooks of the economy - but they are not cashing their checks at the expense of the rest of us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say Webb is right. Let's say the middle class is endangered, as he claims, by globalization - by upstart Chinese, Indians and greedy capitalists. What is to be done about it?
At this point even huge Webb fans such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter detect a flaw in the angry posturing. "The problem with the populist theme," Alter admits, "is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."
But this is not just a "problem" for liberal populism. It's the Achilles' heel.
Sen. James Webb is the toast of Democrats and their allies this week for his impressive response to the State of the Union speech - impressive in terms of rhetoric and delivery, if not always content.
Webb was eloquent in denouncing Bush's policy in Iraq, although his perspective is now the distilled consensus of most Democrats and many other Americans. More curious was his take on the economy, which amounted to another version of presidential candidate John Edwards' "two Americas" theme.
Webb's America is a portrait from Upton Sinclair - a place with a fantastically wealthy overclass lording it over the struggling masses, who are steadily ground down to despair. The middle class, "our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," Webb maintained, while promising to address the "economic imbalance in our country."
Factually, the idea of a vanishing middle class is rubbish - populist folklore and little more. By any reasonable standard, most Americans are easily better off than they were 30 years ago - and the economy continues to hum. Yes, there is a fantastically wealthy elite - not just in corporate board rooms but in entertainment, sports, the media, and several other nooks of the economy - but they are not cashing their checks at the expense of the rest of us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say Webb is right. Let's say the middle class is endangered, as he claims, by globalization - by upstart Chinese, Indians and greedy capitalists. What is to be done about it?
At this point even huge Webb fans such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter detect a flaw in the angry posturing. "The problem with the populist theme," Alter admits, "is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."
But this is not just a "problem" for liberal populism. It's the Achilles' heel.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
President Bush's State of the Union address
The text of President Bush's State of the Union Address can be found here.
Jim Webb's Democratic Response
Senator Jim Webb's response to President Bush's State of the Union address can be found here.
Monday, January 15, 2007
RCP Blog: Sen. Allard retiring
From Real Clear Politics's blog:
"Colorado Republican Senator Wayne Allard is calling it quits. Names that are currently being floated as possible replacements are former U.S. Reps. Scott McInnis and Bob Schaffer , the recently departed Governor Bill Owens, Attorney General John Suthers, and a couple of wildcards like Rep. Tom Tancredo and hall of fame quarterback John Elway.
On the Dem side, Rep. Mark Uduall has already said he will seek the seat, and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has been mentioned as a possible contender as well."
"Colorado Republican Senator Wayne Allard is calling it quits. Names that are currently being floated as possible replacements are former U.S. Reps. Scott McInnis and Bob Schaffer , the recently departed Governor Bill Owens, Attorney General John Suthers, and a couple of wildcards like Rep. Tom Tancredo and hall of fame quarterback John Elway.
On the Dem side, Rep. Mark Uduall has already said he will seek the seat, and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has been mentioned as a possible contender as well."
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Barone: "Bitter Clash Coming Over Iraq"
Barone is right on all points here.
A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq
By Michael Barone
Cynics surely found the words of good will exchanged by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the new House minority leader, John Boehner, at the opening session of the new Congress to be hypocritical and insincere. The two leaders are grizzled veteran pols, after all, who have not been known to be on close, much less candid, terms with each other over the years. But I know them both, and I believe they were speaking genuinely from the heart.
The passage of power from one political party to another is an awesome thing for anyone who knows much history, indeed for anyone who clicks his remote control onto cable news. It is not the norm in human history. And the swearing in of a 110th Congress -- 110th! -- is part of a living chain that links us to George Washington and to James Madison, who was sworn in as a member of the House in the First Congress, 218 years ago.
Which isn't to say that there isn't going to be some bitter conflict between the new Democratic Congress and George W. Bush in months ahead. That's not out of line with tradition, either: Madison was opposing Washington's major initiatives long before the First Congress adjourned.
In that case, the conflict occurred over Alexander Hamilton's economic policies. In this case, the conflict seems likely to occur over what we should do next in Iraq.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it clear that they take the Democratic victory last November as a mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. That's a point you could argue with -- you could make a case from the polls that what voters want most of all is victory and success. But Pelosi and Reid and almost all of their Democratic colleagues are sincere in their view, which is at the least plausible.
George W. Bush, from all accounts, seems to take a different view. He evidently sees the November result as a verdict of dissatisfaction with unsuccess and lack of victory, and so is promising a "new way forward." He has been prompted by his party's "thumpin'" to change the way he manages.
Since the success of the major military operations in May 2003, he has delegated power to appointees he trusts and has mostly ratified their plans. Far from micromanaging the military, he and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seem to have approved pretty much everything that Centcom head Gen. John Abizaid and the rotating military commanders in Iraq have proposed. They seem not to have taken the advice of military historian Eliot Cohen in his book "Supreme Command" that wartime commanders in chief should constantly question, probe, prod and, yes, even overrule their generals, as Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben Gurion did.
Now it looks like Bush is doing something like that. Rumsfeld's resignation was announced the day after the election; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has been moved over to State; Abizaid's retirement has been announced; and Gen. George Casey, the on-the-ground commander in Iraq, is being moved out early. Bush is reported to be planning a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq to establish order in Baghdad and Anbar province. Clearly, the president is changing tactics and maybe even strategy.
Many Democrats are calling this "escalation" and are swearing they'll oppose it. For those who see Iraq through the prism of Vietnam, a surge is something like Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, an intensification of a war that never seems likely to go away.
I have been of the view that the Democratic Congress would not use its legislative powers to bar an increase in troop levels, for fear they would be seen as not supporting the troops already there (and for fear they couldn't get majorities on the floor), and I still think that's unlikely.
There's a danger in being seen as promoting an American defeat. But the left wing of the Democratic Party will be calling loudly for defunding the war, and as we saw last week, in a jarring episode during the festivities, Cindy Sheehan can outshout the Democratic leadership.
I think we're going to see a very loud and bitter clash, one that will contrast vividly with the graceful words of Pelosi and Boehner on opening day. One side wants American victory and success, though it cannot promise that they are certain; the other wants only exit, without regard to the consequences. The 110th Congress will be no more devoid of controversy and angry partisanship than the First.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate
A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq
By Michael Barone
Cynics surely found the words of good will exchanged by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the new House minority leader, John Boehner, at the opening session of the new Congress to be hypocritical and insincere. The two leaders are grizzled veteran pols, after all, who have not been known to be on close, much less candid, terms with each other over the years. But I know them both, and I believe they were speaking genuinely from the heart.
The passage of power from one political party to another is an awesome thing for anyone who knows much history, indeed for anyone who clicks his remote control onto cable news. It is not the norm in human history. And the swearing in of a 110th Congress -- 110th! -- is part of a living chain that links us to George Washington and to James Madison, who was sworn in as a member of the House in the First Congress, 218 years ago.
Which isn't to say that there isn't going to be some bitter conflict between the new Democratic Congress and George W. Bush in months ahead. That's not out of line with tradition, either: Madison was opposing Washington's major initiatives long before the First Congress adjourned.
In that case, the conflict occurred over Alexander Hamilton's economic policies. In this case, the conflict seems likely to occur over what we should do next in Iraq.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it clear that they take the Democratic victory last November as a mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. That's a point you could argue with -- you could make a case from the polls that what voters want most of all is victory and success. But Pelosi and Reid and almost all of their Democratic colleagues are sincere in their view, which is at the least plausible.
George W. Bush, from all accounts, seems to take a different view. He evidently sees the November result as a verdict of dissatisfaction with unsuccess and lack of victory, and so is promising a "new way forward." He has been prompted by his party's "thumpin'" to change the way he manages.
Since the success of the major military operations in May 2003, he has delegated power to appointees he trusts and has mostly ratified their plans. Far from micromanaging the military, he and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seem to have approved pretty much everything that Centcom head Gen. John Abizaid and the rotating military commanders in Iraq have proposed. They seem not to have taken the advice of military historian Eliot Cohen in his book "Supreme Command" that wartime commanders in chief should constantly question, probe, prod and, yes, even overrule their generals, as Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben Gurion did.
Now it looks like Bush is doing something like that. Rumsfeld's resignation was announced the day after the election; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has been moved over to State; Abizaid's retirement has been announced; and Gen. George Casey, the on-the-ground commander in Iraq, is being moved out early. Bush is reported to be planning a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq to establish order in Baghdad and Anbar province. Clearly, the president is changing tactics and maybe even strategy.
Many Democrats are calling this "escalation" and are swearing they'll oppose it. For those who see Iraq through the prism of Vietnam, a surge is something like Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, an intensification of a war that never seems likely to go away.
I have been of the view that the Democratic Congress would not use its legislative powers to bar an increase in troop levels, for fear they would be seen as not supporting the troops already there (and for fear they couldn't get majorities on the floor), and I still think that's unlikely.
There's a danger in being seen as promoting an American defeat. But the left wing of the Democratic Party will be calling loudly for defunding the war, and as we saw last week, in a jarring episode during the festivities, Cindy Sheehan can outshout the Democratic leadership.
I think we're going to see a very loud and bitter clash, one that will contrast vividly with the graceful words of Pelosi and Boehner on opening day. One side wants American victory and success, though it cannot promise that they are certain; the other wants only exit, without regard to the consequences. The 110th Congress will be no more devoid of controversy and angry partisanship than the First.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)