It's unbelievable that this Rolling Stone article got by Jann Wenner. Titled "The Chicken Doves" Matt Taibbi finally admits what many of us have long known: the Democrats had no intention of ending the war in Iraq and played their supporters for suckers.
In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party's lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.Scott at Flopping Aces has more background all the way back to the Democrats sweep in the 2006 elections. Color me unshocked.
Wow, it's amazing how a lefty hatchetman and the hack rag he writes for can turn their shabby partisan reputations around, merely by criticizing someone who's not a Republican.
Taibbi's been writing this kind of even-handed invective for years. This is hardly the first time he's brutalized the Dems, including in the pages of Jann Wenner's Rolling Stone. He's the last reporter who'd need to "finally admit" anything of the kind.
But in a la-la-la-I'm-not-listening, bash-the-venue-ignore-the-content "us vs. MSM" world, such nuances often get overlooked.
Despite the spin by Taibbi and other left wing reporters, the Democrats who won in 2006 ran on "culture of corruption" issues, not ending the war. Which most Americans still seem to support, especially now that we appear to be winning.
Then again, they haven't actually accomplished anything in their "War on Corruption" either.
It's interesting that Obama pledges to get out of Iraq in 2009 in every speech he gives. Maybe he thinks he can, but if he runs on that against McCain, he's going to lose.
There's absolutely no evidence - anecdotal or electoral - that indicates the general public has forgotten about Iraq, or thinks we "appear to be winning." Nor is there any evidence that a strong "stay the course" message is going to resonate.
Yes, McCain long ago made his deal with the GWB forces, and running gung ho pro-war is Karl Rove's standard "attack your opponent's strength" move.
But that strategy was an incredible historic blunder in 2006. Since then, Rove has been going around doing the classic loser bit of "if you just shift 18,000 votes here, and increase turnout 2% there (etc), the GOP would have picked up seats." As Rove's entire existence is predicated on results, it's quite a comedown.
In the short term, there's far more reason to believe that Rove doesn't have much of a Plan B. And almost no reason to think 2008 is going to be a riper environment for the same old tactic than 2006 was.
Post a Comment