Why Democratic Political Consultants Love the Iraq War

[Caro]

The excerpt below is posted with the full knowledge and permission, even encouragement, of the author, who wants his essays to be read by as many people as possible.

From The Hill’s Pundits Blog:

Why Democratic Political Consultants Love the Iraq War

Brent Budowsky

Now we read in the Boston Globe how John Kerry, preparing to campaign to be commander in chief, voted in 2002 for the Iraq war after his political consultants informed the would-be leader of the free world that he would not be “politically viable” unless he voted yes.

This followed the disclosure that Bob Shrum advised John Edwards to send young men and women to die as a way of improving his weak national-security resume in 2002.

Why Democratic officials listen to this is beyond me…

From the beginning, at every stage, Democrats did better in elections, to the exact degree that they spoke out strongly. In 2002, they voted for the war and lost a recession-like election. In 2004 they moved daintily in opposition and did better, but lost again. In 2006 they took their strongest position yet, and won, and Democrats in Congress surged ahead of the Republican Congress and Republican president in early 2007…

We entered 2007 with one of the most unpopular presidents in history and one of the most unpopular Republican Congresses in history. Now, after a few short months of not fighting courageously for change, the Democratic Congress shows up in polls as equally unpopular as George W. Bush…

The Democratic consultant class likes the Iraq war because it gives Democrats the chance to play pretend with non-binding actions, issue talking points about how they fought to change the policy, then lose everything in the end, at which point they can blame the Republicans for the war.

The majority view of Democratic consultants is they don’t want to win a change in policy, because then they have ownership. They want look like they tried, then lose, and then blame Republicans for the war…

Here is the state of play, rounding off the numbers. Seventy percent of the American people disapprove of the current policy; disapprove of President Bush; disapprove of Republicans in Congress; and now disapprove of the Democratic Congress.

It is America versus Washington…

When Washington begins to respect America, Americans will no longer feel 70 percent disrespect for both parties in Washington.

The way to win the election in 2008 is to respect the election of 2006.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Bill Alexander, then-chief deputy whip of the House. He is a contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at [e-mail].

Click the title, above, to read more and to post a comment that may be read by your congressman and senators!.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[AX10]

1. kick

[TahitiNut]

2. Excellent analysis ... which, of course, means that I agree.

I'm fed up with lip-service 'advertising,' whether it be for products whose peddlers regard marketing more cost-effective than actual quality or for politicians for whom two-faced isn't nearly enough for all the pandering they do.

[Caro]

6. The whole PR industry,

including political consultants, are all about how to convince people you're doing the right things, instead of actually doing the right things.

I hate it.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[depakid]

3. "the Democratic Congress shows up in polls as equally unpopular"

That's what was bound to happen- and why the DINO's are as bad or WORSE for the party than their ostensible opponents.

[Truth2Tell]

4. Great post.

But...

just because public opinion is not behind the war, doesn't mean that the "not viable" judgment isn't true. Dems who resist the war are still not viable if they are unable to raise money or garner media attention.

What I think a lot of people are missing is that it's not just public opinion the Dems are afraid of - it's also the war-industrial political lobby - from Boeing to AIPAC - and the power it wields.

edit: spelling

[Caro]

7. You bet.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Caro]

8. Yes,

>>it's not just public opinion the Dems are afraid of - it's also the war-industrial political lobby

You bet.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Sorry for the double post, but I don't seem to have a delete function.

[Phredicles]

5. Ass-kickingly good.

[leftofthedial]

9. pretty much all the campaign cnsultants are DLC

who are repukes, not Democrats

[bigtree]

10. So says Budowsky

It's in fashion these days for folks to ascribe whatever motive they choose to those they disagree with scant evidence to back up their criticisms. Budowsky chooses to present two anecdotal references without any attribution of two consultants, one a pollster.

He'll get his attention and approval for his smear of 'Democratic consultants' from some though, because it's also in fashion to posture as as if the majority of Democrats - or even a sizable number - are somehow pro-war or pro-occupation. It serves the politics of some to join in the chorus of criticism of Democrats, as if voting for one supplemental spending bill automatically transferred 'ownership' of Bush's occupation to our party. The majority of our party members, however, including the entire presidential field of Democrats, are strongly against the occupation.

It certainly doesn't serve any anti-occupation purpose to disregard that overwhelming Democratic opposition. Budowsky's posturing, and that of others who are foisting the blame for Bush's occupation on our party, is actually letting republican enablers in Congress and elsewhere off their deserved hook and giving them cover for their continuing obstruction of legislation containing an end date; which the overwhelming majority in our party have voted for and are willing to do so again and again until Bush relents.

I don't know what Budowsky expects to gain from his criticism, but he's way off . . . and boring as hell.