SmackBack: Dean with a white flag
If Matt Drudge’s flash is accurate, then the Repubs are launching a long-overdue counterattack. Indeed, they are taking advantage of Democrat strategic errors, in this case Kerry’s and Dean’s hard left anti-war antics.
Drudge quotes an unnamed Democrat strategist. I think it’s clear why she wants some degree of cover.
A Democratic strategist who had the web ad described to her said, “This is way over the top but we have no one to blame but Dean, Kerry and others who continue to pander to the anti-war activists within our party.
There will be pundits who say the White House (Karl Rove) played rope-a-dope, stringing the Dems along until their own idiot momentum carried them over the edge– with the last edge being Dean’s remarks on WOAI radio in San Antonio. The SmackBack from the Whtie House is long overdue, but there are problems with this “smart guy” interpretation. We’re in a long haul war. War effort takes primacy over political cycle. The White House is filled with “political cycle” types. They may win elections, but they don’t win wars. This White House needs a better balance.
”
I have a hard time understanding the Democratic “logic”. Bush will be gone in just over three years and they seem willing to screw up the next 20 - 50 YEARS of life in this country just to give Bush a black eye.
Comment by Dave — 12/8/2005 @ 8:01 pm
I am having a hard time understanding the Democratic “logic”. Bush will be gone in about three years and they are willing to screw up life in this country for the next 20-50 YEARS just to give Bush a black eye. Then they have the chutzpa to say it is partriotic to bring the troops home now. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. . . .
Comment by Dave — 12/8/2005 @ 8:39 pm
I think the WH thought they could be “above” the anti-war noise, and just win; letting victory silence their critics. Lack of victory has weakened them — they failed to define the victory steps back in June 2004, when it was: 1) soveriegnty, 2) elections for a Constitutional Assembly, 3) referendum on the Constitution. Each and every one a significant, difficult step. And 4) election of Iraqi representatives, elected by law writen by elected Iraqis, and voted on by Iraqis. More democracy than Japan has.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 12/9/2005 @ 4:15 pm
The extra factor in this is the Main Stream Media, often former democratic staff, who are just going nuts, echoing Cindy and Dean and all the rest of anti-war crowd. Liberal media bias is on display and trust in the media dropping. However, getting a clear message through this spin is difficult. They endlessly repeat the “Bush lied” theme when the facts and the 9/11 Commission say otherwise. We have the war against terror to fight in Iraq but also a hugh political battle to deal with right here at home. Last time, in Vietnam we lost, but I don’t think this strange vicious self loathing crowd is going to succeed this time. Tell your Congressman; “Courage!”
Comment by Rob — 12/9/2005 @ 4:17 pm
They need to come to grips with the fact that the Vietnam War is over with and just let it go. Learn from it yes, but can the incessant angst.
Comment by Shadow — 12/9/2005 @ 5:10 pm
The only question that needs to be asked of the “Dimocrats” is “OK, so what is YOUR plan to fight terror and make the US safe?” The nice thing is after asking that question, one hears only silence (for a change). They have no idea what to do beyond bashing Bush and what we now do to destroy terrorists. It is politics at it’s ugliest when any politician is willing to sacrifice the national interests of the nation for their own personal selfish ones. Americans know it, and can see thru the likes of Dean, Kerry, Rangel, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and Boxer … did I leave anyone out?
Comment by NOTR — 12/9/2005 @ 5:20 pm
Well, this is the key point as far as Democratic political tactics are concerned. The will never get anywhere attacking Casey and Khalilzad, the men who are actually driving the policy in Iraq day to day — besides which their priorities and those of most senior Democrats aren’t all that different. But the President is vulnerable on the matter of his own conduct, not just over how he got us into this war but all the time he spends goofing off in Crawford and his reliance on electioneering hands to manage his public satemtns. People had confidence in Bush as a commander in chief after 9/11; with some considerable cause they have much less today. Apart from that there is no way the Democrats’ spokesmen on national security issues shoud ever be someone with Howard Dean’s background.
Comment by Zathras — 12/9/2005 @ 6:46 pm
I tend to agree that the current crowd of “West Wing Smart Guys†may be too smart for their own good. Actually, I’m not so sure the “Smart Guys†are all that smart – Lets Review Some 2005 GOP Highlights: A Social Security belly flop so big it is only dwarfed by the size of the problem at which it was aimed. A bundle of pork laden self help legislation that makes the largess Ronald Reagan derisively termed “wastefulsocialprograms†seem like a Prudent Exercise in Fiscal Restraint. A sustained year long collapse of the President’s job approval rating, sky rocketing energy costs, increased dependency on a line of Credit from China, and declining domestic support for the War – Did I miss anything?? Oh yeah, a string of natural disasters of a biblical proportion, lapses in judgment over Supreme Court Nominees, a trip to South America sabotaged by Communists and American Reporters [is there a difference], followed by a trip to Asia where a locked door left the President with no exit strategy on the world stage. So exactly what do the “Smart Guys†have to show for all their brilliance in 2005?? I suppose they can claim a degree of ignominious credit from the fact that despite all of this and the incredible level of Democrat hate and discontent, Bush hasn’t been Impeached. Plus if the war loses any more domestic support the administration could order troop withdrawals and look like heroes instead of quitters errrrrrrr…. Democrats. Speaking of whom, the 2005 GOP highlights represent exactly the sort of self congratulatory celebration of dubious success after snatching defeat from the jaws of victory worthy of a Bob Schrum life time achievement award. There is only one problem WE’RE REPUBLICANS!! No doubt the “Smart Guys†at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave benefit greatly from the sage advice I received before entering OCS…“Find the biggest, goofiest screw-up in the platoon, then stand next to him – No matter what else happens, you’ll like gold.†Political opponents like Howard Dean and John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton et al., provide Karl Rove and Andrew Card a terrific advantage. However, a terrific advantage loses its significance if one fails to exploit its opportunity. Just in case Karl and Andy missed The Last Calendar Year during spoon feeding of a federal prosecutor and posturing over legacy issues, the meatballs over whom they had such an amazing advantage used their rather noticeable absence from the race to rewrite the rules as well as the definition of success, the meaning of patriotism, and what qualifies as acceptable free speech. Maybe it is just me but this seem like a questionable political game plan – What “Cycle†are they optimizing?? Who are they “Triangulatingâ€?? What “Game†are they playing?? Second, a “rope-a-dope†domestic political plan of action in a time of war risks substantially more than it offers even if it works. It sends the wrong signal to our enemy (perhaps the most media savvy enemy since the Clinton Administration). It risks the erosion of popular domestic support. It exposes worthy but undefended foreign policy objectives to withering criticism and abuse, which left unchecked may eventually exert a hobbling effect on Operational and Tactical Missions associated with National Strategy. It concedes defeat in the court of public opinion from a position of strength and with victory in sight. National Strategies and their Policy Objectives must be sounded out regularly and defended vigorously (especially in a free and democratic society like ours premised on the open public debate of ideas and free expression) BUSH MUST BEAT THE DRUM AND BEAT IT OFTEN!! And when it comes to the “slings and arrows of outrageous†Democrats: FIRE BACK!! Good ideas don’t stand all on their own THEY ARE ADVOCATED. Sure the best arguments for bad ideas usually lose, but it is equally true that NO ARGUMENT FOR THE BEST IDEA ALSO LOSES!! If 2005 was a “rope a dope†fine, but now its crunch time, so let us hope 2006 brings a steady stream of jabs and body blows followed by a well placed uppercut or two.
Comment by TheMarine — 12/10/2005 @ 1:55 am
I tend to agree that the current crowd of “West Wing Smart Guys†may be too smart for their own good. Actually, I’m not so sure the “Smart Guys†are all that smart – Lets Review Some 2005 GOP Highlights: A Social Security belly flop so big it is only dwarfed by the size of the problem at which it was aimed. A bundle of pork laden self help legislation that makes the largess Ronald Reagan derisively termed “wastefulsocialprograms†seem like a Prudent Exercise in Fiscal Restraint
Comment by TheMarine — 12/10/2005 @ 2:11 am
Makes no sense to me either. The Democrats are still “running against Bush” though Bush isn’t running for reelection. They need to start running on their own ideas and stop being the “they suck worse than we do” party.
Comment by crosspatch — 12/10/2005 @ 3:25 am
I disagree with your assertion that political types don’t win wars. In the current context of a far-left, ant-war controlled Democratic party, defeating the Dems is a very necessary step one to winning any war. I think the White House strategy is more a reflection of this reality, than a purely cynical m.o. Maybe a little more balance is needed, but not if it lets the Dems get away with their craven indifference to anything other than regaining power.
Comment by arknivet — 12/11/2005 @ 8:30 am
The White House is filled with “political cycle†types. They may win elections, but they don’t win wars. This White House needs a better balance. The above reminds me that second Fallujah began just after the 04 election. I wondered at the time how much the US election cycle had to do with it and was that a good thing. I can see that undertaking major urban combat of that difficulty would be an opportunity for Kerry to criticize Bush even without being able to anticipate the footage of the shooting of the wounded terrorist. So I accepted that Bush waited until after the election even though second Fallujah was the beginning of the now successful campaign that followed. Between April and November I was impatient with Fallujah being left to fester, but having seen that the success of the campaign ultimately depended on Iraqi soldiers to holding the ground starting earlier wouldn’t have hastened having enough Iraqi troops anyhow. Still, I have to wonder if a “better balance” would have put us in Fallujah much earlier.
Comment by lgude — 12/11/2005 @ 9:12 am
Bill Clinton is speaking against the US leadership in overseas venues, repeatedly, and intemperately. He thinks he is running against Bush in 2008. Very flaky. Howard Dean is doing what he has to do to keep the main backers of the Democratic Party happy. As a figurehead he does what he must, what he is told. Kerry still thinks he can be elected. Like a ludicrous sixty-something trying to impress a young and fashionable beauty queen, he prances for the camera mistaking the laughter and behind the hand smiles for signs of interest and approval. Hillary is playing the middle field, positioning herself for whatever may happen.
Comment by Denton Palteri — 12/11/2005 @ 6:51 pm