2008 Woodie Awards
Anti-war Democrats must walk a fine line as elections approach
Patrick Boyle
Issue date: 2/9/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In last week's mostly ordinary State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized the War in Iraq as central to the fight against terrorism, described the progress being made and warned against the perils of isolationism.
This was not at all unexpected.
What was more surprising and far more interesting, however, was the Democratic response to the address, delivered by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.
In that address, the War in Iraq was referenced a grand total of two times.
The first time came early in the address and is simply a vague reference to the Bush administration's "poor choices and bad management."
The second and final reference comes far later in the speech, buried under more detailed remarks about Katrina, the deficit, No Child Left Behind, health care and student loan programs.
The language in the second reference is mild, with lame jabs at "inaccurate information" and body armor. No claims that the American people were lied to or misled and not a word about withdrawal.
What this means is that Democrats are finally getting the right idea about Iraq, at least politically and not a moment too soon with midterm elections less than a year away.
They've finally realized that no matter how bad things get in Iraq and no matter how pessimistic the electorate grows, Americans will not support a withdrawal without victory. They've also realized the only thing we hate more than losing is being told that we are losing.
This puts the Democrats in an awkward position. How does one strongly attack the President about the war without sounding defeatist?
At the very least, the Democrats now know what not to say.
They've learned that the John Kerry strategy of both calling the war an unnecessary distraction and calling for more troops doesn't work. It was seen as trying to have it both ways, which it was.
They've learned the Howard Dean approach of simply declaring defeat doesn't work. That was seen as a shrill overreaction to events on the ground by a politician who is no stranger to shrill overreaction.
This was not at all unexpected.
What was more surprising and far more interesting, however, was the Democratic response to the address, delivered by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.
In that address, the War in Iraq was referenced a grand total of two times.
The first time came early in the address and is simply a vague reference to the Bush administration's "poor choices and bad management."
The second and final reference comes far later in the speech, buried under more detailed remarks about Katrina, the deficit, No Child Left Behind, health care and student loan programs.
The language in the second reference is mild, with lame jabs at "inaccurate information" and body armor. No claims that the American people were lied to or misled and not a word about withdrawal.
What this means is that Democrats are finally getting the right idea about Iraq, at least politically and not a moment too soon with midterm elections less than a year away.
They've finally realized that no matter how bad things get in Iraq and no matter how pessimistic the electorate grows, Americans will not support a withdrawal without victory. They've also realized the only thing we hate more than losing is being told that we are losing.
This puts the Democrats in an awkward position. How does one strongly attack the President about the war without sounding defeatist?
At the very least, the Democrats now know what not to say.
They've learned that the John Kerry strategy of both calling the war an unnecessary distraction and calling for more troops doesn't work. It was seen as trying to have it both ways, which it was.
They've learned the Howard Dean approach of simply declaring defeat doesn't work. That was seen as a shrill overreaction to events on the ground by a politician who is no stranger to shrill overreaction.
Be the first to comment on this story