Gallup on Dems: 47% immediate withdrawal; 33% gradual; 9% stay the course

[welshTerrier2]

it cannot be a healthy situation for the Democratic Party when the majority of Democrats who oppose the bush "stay the course" position, according to a very recent Gallup poll, believe we should IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW from Iraq and not even one Senator is willing to represent this view ...

the variety of flavors being offered in the Senate, the "out in a year" Kerry-Feingold bill and the "withdraw on no particular timeline" Levin-Reid bill do NOT reflect what a majority of non-stay-the-course Democrats want ... in fact, even the combination of conservative Democrats with those favoring gradual withdrawal are fewer in number than those calling for IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL ...

it is time that we the people, the Democratic people, stop tolerating this outrageous state of affairs ... it is time that we demand better representation on this critical issue ... it is time that we are recognized as the majority within our own party ... it is time for those supporting candidates on DU to stand with us and pressure candidates they support to recognize this critical constituency, this majority constituency within the party ... and it is certainly time, here on DU, to stop referring to those calling for immediate withdrawal as extremists ... WE ARE THE MAJORITY and we hope you will stand with us ...

this is not a demand to "do exactly as we say" ... it is a call for better representation ... we are being ignored by our own Senators ... they should make a commitment to truly be a big tent and ensure that our majority views are clearly represented in the legislation they propose and the case they make to the American people ...

source: http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=23599

[Terran1212]

1. Actually it's a plurality, to be fair : p

It's important to mention that in US "democracy" the politicians don't care much for what the people think. They have 46 lobbyists (per Congressman) to tell them what to do instead.

[welshTerrier2]

4. majority versus plurality

the problem is, the percentages in the gallup chart didn't add up to 100% ... i called it a majority because, of the 3 categories (i.e. immediate, gradual, stay the course), more than 50% (calculated by 47 / 47 + 33 + 9) called for immediate withdrawal ... it's not clear what position others took or whether they even responded to the question (e.g. no opinion or refused to say) ...

it is true that IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL is a plurality among all Democrats (according to the poll) but it is a majority of those reported on withing the polls 3 categories ...

either way though, the main point is that immediate withdrawal is more preferred as a policy than any other single position ...

[MADem]

2. Wow, Republicans really ARE idiots!!! NT

[bigdarryl]

3. Dem's on Iraq

The senators don't represent the democratic party as a hole

[Tom Joad]

5. Dem officeholders are loyal to those who put them in office.

Not the voters. But the fat cats who support US empire.

[welshTerrier2]

6. Iraq will be the defining issue in November

another snip from the article:

"This is occurring in an environment in which Iraq is considered by Americans to be the most important problem facing the country, and the number one priority for the government to address at this point."

[karynnj]

7. This is an extremely badly worded survey question

That needs the gradual withdrawal broken into at least 2 categories. I do agree with you that this is amazing given how few Senators were willing to go on record for Kerry's amendment or the Kerry/Feingold one. As you've said the elected officials are not in line with the population.

(I suspect this was designed to get a peak at the middle category - by making the other 2 categories extremes. It actually backfired.)

[Clarkie1]

8. I'm surprised the majority of Dems are against immediate withdrawl.

Would never know that if you just hung around here on DU.

[welshTerrier2]

9. the majority of Dems?

the Gallup poll showed 33% for gradual withdrawal (like the Kerry and Levin plans) and 9% for stay the course ... so far, that's 42% not supporting immediate withdrawal ...

where are you getting the other 8.1% to make it a majority?

[Clarkie1]

11. You posted that 47% were for immediate withdrawl, so 53% are against. nt

[welshTerrier2]

12. that's not necessarily correct ...

the poll totals (47+33+9) added up to 89 ...

it is not right to conclude that the unaccounted for 11% oppose immediate withdrawal ... maybe they were in a group who had no opinion or support immediate or gradual withdrawal equally ...

can i assume you fully agree that the 47% are not represented by the Democratic Senate and that a real "big tent" requires this to change??

[Clarkie1]

13. Well, I agree with a caveat.

You are making an incorrect assumption (at least implicitly, I think) that the Democratic senators represent only Democrats. They don't.

Democratic senators represent their constituents which include Democrats, independents, Republicans, and those of other political affiliations. In most cases, most of the people who vote for a Democratic senator will be Democrats, but there are some states where the majority of voters decline to state any party affiliation. And even if that is not the case, I am sure there is no Democratic senator in the senate who won thier seat with exclusively registered Demcrats voting for them. So, while this view (immediate withdrawl) may be underrepesented, it is not underrepresented to the extent implied. It does not follow that 47% (roughly half) of Democratic senators should be supporting immediate withdrawl to accurately reflect the views of their constituents.

[welshTerrier2]

16. that's right but that's not my point

my point is that the Democratic Party is treating the Out Now wing of the party like Crazy Uncle Albert tucked safely from view in the attic ... i would be a very happy camper if Senate Dems did exactly as i wanted but that is not what i'm calling for here ... nor am i calling for, as your post described, proportional representation ...

what i am calling for is better representation ... this should be achieved by massive party reforms to improve intra-party communication ... i think the party is at risk if the current situation continues ... the Senate Dems are saying "here's how it's going to be and you're all expected to just go along" ... it's a dangerous tone they're setting ... the activist left may not involve itself the way it has in the past both with regard to campaign work, contributions and votes ... that remains to be seen but i see no value in taking the risk ... i also see it as very poor representation ...

i'd like to see a meaningful, party-wide dialog on the issue ... no, i don't expect everyone to agree but i do hope for a minimum of a better understanding and perhaps a greater degree of compromise ... i can flat out tell you that i am DONE voting for and helping the war supporter crowd whether they're Democrats or not ... maybe i'm a majority of one; who knows ... but i am done ... my money and support has been going to local candidates and to progressive Democrats who are appropriately opposed to the war ...

again, the goal is not blind adherence to my position nor is it proportional representation ... but the current "the hell with the progressive wing" is going to cost us in a big way ...

finally, i wanted to address your point about the Senate representing all the people ... no argument there ... my view of the politics of the war is that the Democrats are seen as having a wishy-washy non--position ... i think by choosing a "moderate" line, we are painting ourselves as passionless on the issue ... we are seen as a party making political calculations (triangulating) rather than having deep convictions ... i think this is going to kill us in '06 and '08 ... i think it killed us in '04 too ...

[Clarkie1]

17. Thank you for your reply...two questions.

I think if you respond as thoughtfully as you did to my previous post, it might help with some of the "intra-party" dialogue you were talking about, albeit in a small way. In your view:

1) Are all Democrats who do not support immediate withdrawl "war supporters"

2) Is it possible to be against the war, and also against a senate-mandated deadline for withdrawl?

I've never supported this war, but it still appears we're in it.

[welshTerrier2]

18. fair enough ...

1. are those against immediate withdrawal war supporters?

there is no real answer to this question ... from my point of view, if you believe the war should continue because <insert your reasons here> then i see that as providing reasons to support the continuation of the war ... so my perspective is "yes" ...

i fully understand that many who choose a gradual path to end the war don't like the war ... but, nevertheless, whether they are pottery barners or otherwise, it's hard to argue they are not supporting the war when they call for it to continue ...

just to try to "show you the war from my perspective" so at least my statements above are clear even if you disagree with them, i don't believe bush wants to see things resolve themselves in Iraq anytime soon ... i think the conflict has been manipulated as a justification to keep US troops in Iraq until the necessary Big Oil infrastructure, including permanent military bases, is completed ... i see every vote for continued funding as ENABLING bush to complete HIS mission ... for this reason, while i fully agree democracy, regional stability, reconstructing Iraq, etc are noble objectives, i do not believe they are bush's objectives and i do not believe they will be achieved as long as he is in the WH ... for this reason, along with many others, i think we have to get out NOW ...

2) Is it possible to be against the war, and also against a senate-mandated deadline for withdrawl?

well, i hope my answer above covers this question ... again, based on my reasoning above, my answer would be "no" ... if the objection to a Senate mandated deadline suggests that either a "date certain" is strategically disadvantageous or that we need to wait to "see what develops" before we make such a concrete plan, i see this as an "open ended" approach to the occupation ...

the problem I have with an open-ended approach is that it implicitly argues that the benefits of remaining are likely to exceed the benefits of leaving ... or, alternatively, the costs of leaving will outweigh the costs of remaining ...

no matter the interpretation, i think the fundamental divide is based on the following factors:
1. what is the US really trying to achieve in Iraq (oil=out now, something better for the Iraqis=gradual withdraw or stay the course)
2. is there any hope based on what's going on in Iraq (no=out now, yes = gradual or stay)

to conclude, it's hard to understand, for me anyway, how to reconcile being against the war with arguing that it should continue ... again, i appreciate that many in this category would never have gone to war, hate the war, and have no faith in bush whatsoever ... i guess in the end though, by calling for even one more day, it seems to me they have no choice but to acknowledge they are putting their faith in bush ...

perhaps you can take my "twisted views" of this and enlighten me to another way of seeing things ... i'm willing to listen to reason although i'm not always easily persuaded ...

amidst all this discussion, i hope we can remember the essential purpose of this thread: i am deeply concerned that the party has chosen to ignore a very significant "Out Now" constituency ... i see that as poor representation and poor politics as well ...

[Clarkie1]

19. Getting back to the essential purpose of this thread (eventually).

I just want to say a few thing before getting back to the "essential purpose," related to your responses to my questions. I'm not going to write much here, because really, it's all mostly been said before. However, a couple thoughts came to mind.

1) Bush isn't going to be in office forever, and a Democratic president in 08' would certainly have the power to reverse neo-con policy. Most importantly I think, that would mean no permanent bases in Iraq.

2) We aren't the ones setting the policy (at least not now). Regardless of what the senate does, it is likely that troop levels will be gradually reduced this year and next. Beyond that, it's hard to predict. I really don't think the senate can affect the policy much with the one-party grip on power that currently exists.

Now, back to the essential purpose of the thread.

Short of the Democratic leadership endorsing an "out now" policy, what would signal to you that your views weren't being ingnored? I'd like to know more, concretely, exactly what you want to see happening within the party. "Intra-party discussion" is rather vague; what would be the evidence, to your satisfaction, that there was intra-party discussion going on?

[welshTerrier2]

21. a long and winding road ...

before i take my best shot at how to have an "intra-party" discussion, i wanted to respond to the two bullet items you listed ...

you stated that a Democratic president in '08 would likely mean no permanent bases in Iraq ...

i wish i had the same confidence in the current crop of candidates ... i don't ...

here's an excerpt of a long interview with Chalmers Johnson ... it's long been standard US policy to build the empire by stationing troops in permanent military bases all over the world ... this has been true in both Democratic and republican administrations ...

My definition of empire is this world of bases that has its foundation in World War II. It was expanded by the Korean War and then into the Persian Gulf after the collapse of the regime of the Shah of Iran in 1979. It was also expanded to places like Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

There are 725 of these bases that the military lists. The actual number is almost surely another 100 or so -- if you include the espionage bases, the British bases, the three secret bases in Israel, and the bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which are not counted. There are also fourteen bases being built in Iraq right now, and a large number of bases in Afghanistan. We’ve got a very considerable empire, one that combines imperialism with militarism.

your second point is that "we aren't the ones setting policy" ... certainly no one can argue with that ... but again, to view the party as powerless because we are out of power would be a huge mistake ... with elections coming up in November and the republicans running scared because of bush's horrible poll numbers, we have plenty of power ...

the party should take bold, firm stands on the major issues and use the upcoming elections for political leverage ... we can force the republicans to either go on the record against us or to make some concessions ... but the party has given this leverage away for free ... instead of putting forward a clear alternate plan, especially for Iraq, and then putting it before the American people, i see nothing but political game playing ... instead of a unified party message to put an absolute end to congressional bribes from lobbyists, i hear almost nothing from Democrats ... there are many other examples ... Democrats can't win on any vote without republican support because we are out of power; with greater political pressure, however, we could be far more effective ...

and secondly, even being out of power, we still need to focus on the foundation of our political support ... what is that foundation? educating the voters on what we believe ... the party's message is an "all the time" job ... do we believe in balanced budgets? what is the party's view on the social safety net? what is the right balance between regulating corporations and allowing business more freedom to operate? what is the role of our military? exact programs and policies are not needed; we need a longer-term campaign to establish the identity of our party ... right now, OUR identity has been defined for us by the republicans ... what is that identity? even getting beyond the labels (e.g. tax and spend), the party is painted as unfriendly to business (hurting jobs), too free with social spending (raising taxes) and weak on defense (anti-military) ... the problem i see is that we've allowed the republicans to paint us so negatively and we have not responded correctly ... the party is more committed to social spending than the republicans are ... to do that, however, and this also addresses the tax issue, we have to propose real, meaningful cuts in other programs ... we are afraid to do that ... THE program that needs the most cutting, besides rolling back bush's tax cuts, is our bloated defense budget ... but Democrats are obsessed with the weak on defense allegations so they won't call for defense cuts ...

and that is a major problem ... we "go along" with Iraq because we have to appear tough ... we go along with massive excesses in the defense budget, especially in hardware programs, because we have to appear tough ... the reality is, and this is the killer point, both Iraq and excessive defense spending WEAKEN the country ... but Democrats won't say that to the American people because we're working on our new macho image ... truly it is crazy ... the result is that we are seen as followers, not leaders, on defense ... the result is that we are seen as social spenders with no plan to balance the budget beyond raising taxes ... this whole foolishness plays right into republican hands ... this is how i've seen the political landscape since 1980 when reagan was elected ... our new image program is killing us ... it's not triangulation; it's madness and it is a big loser ...

oops, looks like i've drifted a few hundred miles off course again ...

here's my "off the top of my head" intra-party dialog program ... it's perhaps a bit simplistic but it's a start ... perhaps we can also discuss the party's, really both parties', absolute failure to capture votes from the tens of millions of Americans who have completely given up on the electoral process ... they shouldn't be ignored either ... it's unhealthy for a functioning democracy and it certainly is a rich source of potential votes if we had the right approach and the right message ...

Building an intra-party dialog:
1. respect - i would like to hear my wing of the party and our views on Iraq talked about regularly by every party spokesman ... no, they don't have to agree but they should acknowledge us instead of pretending we don't exist ... that would help a lot for starters ...
2. invisible Senators - seen yours lately? it's an outrage that most Senators (of either party) are virtually invisible to their constituents ... this is just plain crap ... every state should be divided up into geographical regions and each region should expect at least one visit or more from both of their Senators every year ... the visits should be held on the weekend and should last for several hours or more ... the format should be a free, open to the public forum where Senators can give a speech and then use most of the time taking questions and listening to voters ... right now, the only time most of us can see these guys is at fundraising events ... that's just wrong ...
3. online blogging - Senators should take turns live blogging with the public ... it would be great if every Senator could spend, say one hour a week discussing issues online ... is one hour too much to ask to give voters access to their representatives??
4. party surveys - i received a survey a while back from Hillary ... she wanted to know what i thought on a wide array of issues ... Iraq was not one of the questions she considered "important" ... i would like to see processes developed to poll ALL Democrats on the issues and publish the results ... then, forums could be created to discuss the results ... party officials and elected Democrats could have their own forum where they could comment and react to the poll results ... also, the public could have an area to discuss the issues and raise questions to the party for further discussion ...
5. party platform - i've read the party's agenda on the DNC website ... i think it's awful ... i won't elaborate here ... but i would like to see a process of building the platform that starts by soliciting input from ALL registered Democrats ... and i would like to see the results of that process "negotiated" publically to form the foundation of the platform ...

well, this has gotten way too long but those are the kinds of changes i would like to see ... right now, we have a situation where decisions are being made at the top for solely political purposes ... this is a dangerous situation because it leads to alienation ... whatever the mechanics, the party that prides itself on being a "big tent" is going to suffer if those become just hollow words that are not backed up by more inclusive processes ... we need reforms very badly and i see very little inclination to make them ...

[Clarkie1]

27. Your ideas on intra-party dialogue are excellent.

I think it would be excellent if the Democratic Party made those ideas part of our platform that all Democratic senators would be expected to follow. I think it would win the party a lot of points from not just Democrats from others as well if we present our party as a party of dialogue, not dogma.

Regarding the current surveys, however, I have to say I am cynical about those. Whenever I get one I wonder if they are really being read or are just a means for fundraising.

You say you don't have a lot of faith in the current crop of potential 08' candidates to reverse neo-con policy. That's why we have primaries and caucuses. We need an open debate and demand candidates commit to a reversal of neo-con policy, and educate the American people about what that means. I think there will be candidates in 08' who will come out against permanent bases in Iraq (actually, at least one already has).

I agree Democrats need to have a more focused message, but I think the Party is becoming obsessed with Iraq. Iraq is the doing of the Bush administration. Let them try and do the best they can to deal with the situation, and as we regain power in 06' and 08' we can present alternatives. I don't see how we can set a new course in Iraq with Bush in the White House, whatever the compostision of congress. This is not Vietnam. There is no draft, and therefore most of the American people don't feel themselves directly affected by Iraq. What we should do is constantly remind the American people this was an unnecessary war, and that we expect more progress towards a peaceful Iraq free of American troops. At the same time, we must not be seen as a party with no better plan. Unfortunately, Democrats are allowing themselves to get hung up in internal debates on Iraq without setting forth a strong agenda on all the other issues you mention. We don't own Iraq, but we can own those other issues and change the Iraq policy once we are in a postition to do so.

[Totally Committed]

22. Clarkie1...

"1) Bush isn't going to be in office forever, and a Democratic president in 08' would certainly have the power to reverse neo-con policy. Most importantly I think, that would mean no permanent bases in Iraq."

I disagree with this premise. PLENTY of the Democrats who have already committed to running are either hawks or quasi-hawks who are ready to "stay the course" (for now) or (gawdhelpus) "stay until we win". You cannot tell me those same Democrats, if elected POTUS, will be willing to completely turn around the neo-con policies in Iraq, and that adds up to not necessarily being able to count on no permanent bases in Iraq. There are more flavors in this Party than just one across-the-board-vanilla Democrat.

I agree with wT2, that we "out now"-ers are woefully underrepresented. But, it's a fact of life now in this country and this Party that even a vocal near-majority is made to seem like the crazy relative to be hidden in the attic rather than a real base of support. That is a cynical and stupid way of treating us... and I believe they are playing with fire when they do so.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. You're point is valid WT2. Your position is under represented

So I have no real argument with you here. I think it is worth noting though, leaving Republicans out of it because they are clearly on the other side of the partisan divide, that Independents pick immediate withdrawal as their least favored option, albeit not by much. Gradual withdrawal though is the clear plurality choice of Independents, and Democratic politicians do need to factor in the opinions of Independents also to an extent along with those of fellow Democrats. With the exception of one current Senator and one current Representative in the House, Independents are not independently represented either, they depend on Democrats and Republicans to represent them also. Independents are an increasingly large segment of the voting public, and many Democrats receive significant numbers of votes from them. I think Kerry won a majority of those who described themselves as Independents in 2004, and Independents today are increasingly siding with Democrats today in polls about who should be the control of Congress.

[The Magistrate]

20. One Further Point, Mr. Rinaldo

"Immediate withdrawl" does not really mean quite the same thing in all mouths that utter it. To use myself as an example, my answer on a poll such as this probably would be "immediate withdrawl", but it is also clear to me that withdrawl of the U.S. forces would take a considerable time: even if the decision to do it were made today, there would probably still be U.S. troops in Iraq when the year ended. A lot of people certainly mean by "immediate withdrawl" deciding to withdraw now and moving towards it quickly, or in other words, gradual withdraw on a speeedy schedule commencing very soon.

[welshTerrier2]

25. that's right - definitions will vary

fwiw, my definition of immediate withdrawal is withdrawing as quickly as possible without jeopardizing the safety of American troops ... it would NOT include any other pre-requisites like Iraqi troop levels or "an effective Iraq unity government" or anything else ...

i would not include the vague jargon "speedy schedule commencing very soon" without adding to that phrasing words that clarify (i.e. ruling in or out) any intended conditionality ... one man's "speedy" is another man's one more year of war and occupation ... we've already seen that script ...

[The Magistrate]

28. My Point Though, Sir

Is simply to emphasize that a percentage of answers endorsing "immediate withdrawl" in a poll such as this cannot be taken to indicate that the sort of graduted withdrawl proposals put forth by some Democrats in the Legislature are contrary to the desires of Democratic voters, or would not be regarded by Democratic voters as adequately representative of their real views on the matter.

[welshTerrier2]

32. definitions

here was how the poll defined the terms immediate and gradual:

1. Gradual Withdrawal:
Train Iraqis to run own country
Come up with an exit strategy
Make a gradual withdrawal

2. Immediate Withdrawal:
Pull the troops out and come home

speaking only of proposals by Democratic Senators, it's hard to see how either the Kerry-Feingold proposal or the Levin-Reed proposal could be seen as qualifying under option #2 ... the Kerry-Feingold bill, the more aggressive of the two which called for a withdrawal deadline more than one year later, could hardly be called "immediate withdrawal" by any reasonable assessment ...

in fact, Kerry himself had earlier (in his 04/06 proposal) used the term "immediate withdrawal" in a very different capacity ... he, himself, distinguished between a strategy of getting out immediately versus providing time for the new Iraqi government to get its feet on the ground ... his latest proposal clearly was intended to be in the latter category ... Kerry's April proposal said that we should "immediately withdraw" by May 22 if the Iraqis failed to form "an effective unity government" ... though i strongly disagreed with his post-May 22 assessment, he nevertheless concluded that the US should NOT immediately withdraw and that the new government should be given more time with the US remaining in occupation ...

[tulip]

14. If you add the Indepents to the Dems

the totals beat Republicans by a landslide. Pay attention Republicans because it's the combined votes of Independetns and Democrats that will leave you in the dust in 06.

[sandnsea]

15. But Independents don't

And as some of us have tried to explain a cazillion times, it takes more than Democrats to win an election AND a Senator is responsible to ALL his constituents, not just the 25% or so who support immediate withdrawal.

[onenote]

23. beat me to it

Exactly the point I was going to make...

[Totally Committed]

24. Why is it when the Republicans represent us,

they take the prerogative of victory, and vote their Party line? ("there are consequenses of losing an election" -- remember THAT?) But, when a Democratic Senator wins, they are said to represent MORE than just the Democrats who voted for them? Why do we have to play fair until they do? Are we not allowed the preprgative of victory -- or is that only for Republicans?

I don't see any Republican softening his or her Anti-Choice stand because they are supposed to represent ALL points of view. Why, then, should we?

Just asking.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. To answer TC, only a few defensible reasons I can think of

And by defensible I mean simply that, there are reasonable defenses that can be made for not mimicking the Republican "to the winners go the spoils" political position. The fact that a reasonable defense can be made is not the same in all cases as saying that a reasonable defense is ultimately a winning one, it can still fall short of being persuasive enough or ultimately having integrity in any given instance.

One reason is the obvious one. Some times the Republicans damage the very fabric of our society by constantly being so fiercely partisan and closed to attempts to achieve a broader consensus on issues beyond that advocated by their core base. The contrary wisdom is as old as our Republic; United we stand, divided we fall. Republicans under Karl Rove frequently pursue a divide and conquer strategy. They seek for and utilize wedge issues to fracture any sense of commonality, tolerance and cooperation among Americans, so long as they think the emotional divides that result will leave them clinging to victory over their opposition, damn all other costs. Sometimes someone needs to look at the larger picture and not just victory at all costs.

Another potential defense is tactical, and obviously the strength of this argument will vary according to each situation being looked at, and the true facts at hand. This defense can be claimed falsely by those to whom it is a convenient refuge for ignoring the wishes of those who elected them. This defense actually is very relevant to debates about Iraq though. In a nut shell, if progress on ending the War in Iraq, through progress on putting checks on the Bush Administration, is argued to be best advanced by winning a majority of the seats in one or more Houses of Congress this November. And if it were to sincerely be believed that the ability to achieve that goal was dependent on being able to win over enough Independent voters in enough key districts and States to depose a sufficient number of Republican incumbents. And furthermore if it was sincerely believed that the essential means to achieve that was to temper a pure Democratic message with one that appealed to independent voters in one or more strategic areas, that could be the basis for a strategic argument for broadening the message that one or more Democrats run on beyond one that appeals to the Democratic base.

The defense would be that this would more likely advance a cause thought important by the Democratic base than would embracing a purer version, if doing so would lead to Democrats defeat and a continuation of the status quo under Republicans. A key observation being that Republicans are playing very hard ball WHILE they hold a majority of the votes in Congress plus the Executive branch, not when they are out of power. I am not claiming that this argument necessarily is the winning one here, just that it is one possible answer to the question TC raises.

The last defense of course is the classic "matter of personal conscience" recourse. That being that sometimes a politician feels compelled to be a "Profile in Courage" and vote their true convictions even if it displeases their own constituency that elected them. I mention this defense only in passing to be complete. Though some Democrats may claim this defense to defend their position on Iraq, I doubt it has much to do with anything for most of them. It is actually more likely to be an honest factor in why an individual Democrat may be anti-abortion despite the contrary beliefs of most Democrats who actually elected him or her.

[welshTerrier2]

36. "best advanced by winning a majority of the seats"

excellent insights, Tom ...

ignoring the policy considerations on Iraq for the moment, i.e. what one might consider the best policy for the country, and looking at the politics, my view of the current Democratic strategy is that, while "winning a majority of seats" MIGHT alter our policy in Iraq, my personal view is that winning that majority in the first place is made less likely by what is being done, or not done, by Democrats in the Senate ...

and the view derives not from polls and statistics (at least not polls about the war) but rather from my own subjective observations ... your mileage may vary ...

i think the Democratic Party is seen as weak and directionless by many Americans ... i base this on nothing beyond my own observations ... with bush so low in the polls and virtually everything the republican controlled government has touched being a total disaster, Democrats should be on the brink of regaining both houses and establishing themselves as the majority party for generations to come ... i just don't see an overwhelming Democratic tide ... there's no excuse for that ... are we likely to make gains? i think so ... but we should be doing much, much, much better than we are ... i think we have a major message problem ... especially on Iraq, we criticize bush very effectively but either a. we offer no tangible alternatives and/or b. our alternatives are not seen as materially different by the public ... yes, to some extent we can blame the media and republican spin and all the other legitimate enemies we face ... but we should not be too quick to give a pass to our own party leaders ...

the war drags on and on ... more and more Americans have had enough and no longer want to invest in the war in either blood nor treasure ... everyday, almost everything on the news seems more horrible than the day before ... bush says the liberal media are not reporting all the good things ... Iraq is in a civil war ... what's he want them to report? the Iraqi soccer scores?

but what do Democrats offer? tweaks ... the "left-wing Senators", call for more than another year of war ... the rest of them say we can start withdrawing a little but not too much and not too fast and we have no idea when it should all end but we really shouldn't pick any meaningful date certain ... let's keep going and going and going and not confront the president and we'll see what happens and maybe sometime, you know, at some point, we'll stand up and actually make a decision ... or ... maybe we won't ... we'll see ...

the point here is that this is NOT what Americans are looking for in their leaders ... this is NOT to argue for my preferred policy ... it is to argue that the party seems to be all over the place ... rudderless you might say ...

i would very highly recommend reading at least the first part of this article which expresses the critical need (not specifically on Iraq) for the party to present itself in a much clearer, well defined manner ... Iraq was just the example i selected based on this thread ...

here's the link (there's a GDP thread) on this too: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11435

here's the link to the GDP thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2716633

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. This is really an excellent discussion, I feel guilty

It just so happens that my time is really limited this week. I am tied up pretty tightly in some political projects I have responsibilities for that are sucking up all my free time. I almost didn't post at all because I figured you might come back with a really thoughtful reply, WT2. I'm supposed to be doing something else right now, lol.

Well one thing that is clear to me is that Democrats have to become straight shooters who clearly say what they really believe and why. In terms of leadership in many ways I think that is the most important quality that Democrats need to project to win the confidence of more voters. You see WT2 I don't believe all of the Democrats who are unclear about exactly when they think we should be out of Iraq are actually triangulating, though I do fear that many may be doing just that. And I certainly don't think all of them are passively accommodating Bush's agenda by taking the stance that they do, though I do fear some may be doing that also.

I think there is some sincere common ground between Democrats who are clear that the United States has to pull out of Iraq as soon as is sanely possible, all things considered, even if these same Democrats have profoundly different opinions over what needs to be "considered" and what would be a sane strategy for withdrawal after considering all of that. As I think you pointed out above, probably not all of our elected Democrats are even firmly on board with the concept that the United States has no business trying to hold on to a permanent presence inside Iraq. That part has to be flushed out into the open.

I think if enough Democrats can forge a strong shared sincere core of beliefs consensus about the real necessity of getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, that is a bottom line division from the Republican "stay the course - isn't it great Hussein is dead" position that most Americans will understand. That means leaving a few Democratic hawks standing sputtering on the side lines if need be if they do not legitimately deeply share our shared perspective. After that I think Democrats should each strongly stand for what they each really believe is the best immediate approach to take about getting out of Iraq as soon as possible. No mealy mouthed trying to please everyone statements. Let Democrats disagree here if the disagreement is honest and confined to the matter of how best to get ourselves out of an admitted mess that it was always a mistake to get into. A strong stand that Iraq was a total mistake to get into also distinguishes this core Democratic position from the Republican stance, and Americans can appreciate that difference also.

Americans understand that Democrats do not hold the reigns right now. If they understand that we at the least have a clear understanding that it was a mistake to go into Iraq and that we really need to get OUT of Iraq, fuck permanent bases, they will respect that Democrats have a core set of values and beliefs that distinguish our positions (plural) from that of Bush. Then let the electorate decide. Let Democrats vote for a Lamont in a primary if they want to. Let moderate Democrats who don't favor a fixed timeline run against Neo-Con Conservatives in Red States with the support of Independents if that is the profile that will galvanize a majority of voters in a Republican leaning state to turn away from Bush's policies. I don't think the problem is that Democrats have different opinions on this. I think the problem is that Democrats are not always speaking forcefully enough from their hearts about what they do believe we need to do regarding Iraq, even if positions honestly vary among Democrats within a common framework that distinguishes us from the Republicans. Undoubtedly, if more Democratic leaders had the courage of their own beliefs, it would not be rare to hear one advocate for immediate withdrawal. I agree with you there WT2.

If I have time to, and I'll try, I will get over to the discussions you directed me to, but I have to get back to what I'm supposed to be doing now!

[sandnsea]

37. Snowe & Collins

Both are pro-choice Republicans, as Chaffee is, IIRC. Senator Smith, in Oregon, generally crosses over on environmental issues because he would pay for it if he didn't. It does happen with Republican Senators, DU just doesn't pay attention to those instances.

Of course, it's also right to remember that no amount of crossover votes from a Republican makes their basic view of government (or non-government) correct.

[Totally Committed]

26. Really good thread about this subject from GD:

Democrats v. The Peace Movement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1602095

Check it out!

TC

[welshTerrier2]

29. and a really, really good one in GDP (ahem) ...

check this one out which was based on the same article as the GD thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2715564&mesg_id=2715564

[Totally Committed]

30. Sorry... I took some "mental health time" away from DU over the weekend,

checking in rarely, so I missed that one. (Sorry!) It IS a damned good OP, but you write beautifully, anyway.

Sorry again that I missed that!

TC

[welshTerrier2]

31. no problem, TC ...

i find myself on the same page as you more and more ...

thanks for your very kind words about my writing ... i really used to be a horrible writer ... i think all this DU'ing has helped tremendously ... i wish i could make some money as a writer ... that would be wayyyyy cool ...

maybe i should turn my DU journal into a book and try to get it published ... i wonder if there would be a market for such things ... hmmmmmmm ...

[Totally Committed]

33. Your writings here would make an excellent book!

There are more than a couple of you who could definitely turn their DU Journals into a fine book, and you are definitely one of those who could.

I know I'd buy a book you wrote! :)

TC

[mnhtnbb]

34. Absolutely even distribution across all surveyed populations

if you average each response across the populations. However, that suggests that 2/3 of the respondents want to see some form of withdrawal.