« The Bernie Party | Main | Sea Change »
August 18, 2005
Next at Bat: Russ Feingold
In recent weeks, we've been talking a fair amount about how no prominent Democrats are standing up to give voice to the "withdrawal" movement. Well, that changed today. Russ Feingold is calling for a pull-out date of December 31st, 2006, and, so far as I can tell, he's going to do so loudly. Yesterday, I was invited to two major national security speeches and a media Q&A Russ is giving in Los Angeles early next week. So he's definitely taking the message nationwide and is, if I can speculate, hoping to use hist "firstness" on the topic to carve out a Deanesque maverick position in advance of 2008. Interesting stuff. I will, of course, have more on this after next week's events.
Update: It'll be interesting, as Kevin notes, to see how the Biden/Clinton wing reacts. If they're solicitous of the move and publicly supportive of the motivations behind it, you'll know that a) the polls have got to them and b) they're hedging their bets. If they condemn it and say something about not aiding the insurgency, you'll know they're a bunch of douches determined to avoid another VIetnam-style meltdown of the party's national security credentials. What concerns me is that that second reaction, the condemnations and protests of anti-insurgency strength, are actually much more dangerous for the party. A serious hawk/dove split within the party where the establishment sits with the hawks and the base runs to the doves and turns violently against the war-lovin' establishment is essentially what happened in 68, and it's not the sort of thing that's good for the party.
August 18, 2005 in Democrats | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8342378a953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Next at Bat: Russ Feingold:
» Asked and answered: A timetable on Iraq from Waveflux
Where is Democratic leadership on a withdrawal from Iraq? It's in Wisconsin - with Russ Feingold. [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 3:26:42 PM
» Feingold fires one across the bow from The Unrepentant Individual
If Bush would explain what needs to be done and how he intends to accomplish it, 90% of his PR work is done. Then, giving a target date along with a quick explanation of why and how it will take until that time to complete the mission will turn the t... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 5:26:57 PM
Comments
Hell, I was wondering when someone would jockey as the insurgent challenger to (presumably) Hillary. Really smart to get out there quickly.
And one thing about the "netroots" fundraising: they love mavericks who take an unapologetic stand on the war and I suspect won't back the front-runner (part of the mystique of netroots fundraising is small-money donors toppling well-financed but traditional candidates -- like Hillary).
And, if his first Senate campaign is any indication, his campaign might be even smarter than Trippi's concerning television advertisements. His ads in his first Senate campaign were brilliantly funny and really, really worked.
This could really work.
Posted by: Chris R | Aug 18, 2005 12:19:40 PM
Did you see Dave Johnson's latest comments?
"Advocating cutting and running is advocating letting the Republicans off the hook and offering to shoulder the blame in their place."
Posted by: Lis Riba | Aug 18, 2005 1:01:57 PM
As long as they do it, you know, NICELY.
Posted by: Jim Madison's Dog | Aug 18, 2005 1:23:26 PM
Here's the part of Dave's post that is even more important.
The second is thinking about what happens if we do leave. Civil war will kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. So would chaos. An Islamic Republic would enslave the women. The most likely result is Iran takes over the Shiite terrirories - and the oil.
And, frankly, we must not leave behind a determined enemy with all the resources of an oil-rich nation-state.
I think Dave 'Get's it' and is not all consumed with obtaining power to rule at any cost as many of the left wing of the Democratic party are. He goes on even further:
My "position" on Iraq is that we should send as many troops as is needed to restore order, allow them to develop a stable government and rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. That is my position.
This would require a draft, and taxes sufficient to pay for the effort (incuding reconstructing Iraq.) If we instead ask the UN to take over, we should be the ones who pay for their forces and the reconstruction.
Whatever our differences, Dave is a Great American. He does, truly, understand that we are at war, there is an enemy and he recognizes who they are. Those 'useful idiots' such as Cindy Sheehan and her minions do not understand that peace at any cost is an inherently immoral position.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 1:24:38 PM
See Fred, you just want war. Your perogative, I guess, but that's what you want. I supported the war from the beginning but it's become clear to me, as to many others, that it's a failure, and the best way to achieve peace for the Iraqi people would be setting conditions for withdrawal. I disagree with Russ on the timetable, but conditions? That should be a no-brainer. And, sure enough, it's opposed by folks with no brains.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 18, 2005 1:37:39 PM
See Fred, you just want war.
What you seem to be saying, Ezra, is anyone who isn't for a complete pullout is a war-monger. I never thought you an idiot, but I'm starting to change my mind. What I want is what is best and a pullout, as Dave has so eloquently pointed out, is not what is best.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 1:58:11 PM
You're not only welcome to think of me an idiot, you're welcome to stop attending my comment threads. I wouldn't want to infect. You wrote:
"He does, truly, understand that we are at war, there is an enemy and he recognizes who they are. Those 'useful idiots' such as Cindy Sheehan and her minions do not understand that peace at any cost is an inherently immoral position."
That's moronic. There's a serious argument going on over how best to complete this war, and many, many folks are coming to the conclusion that a structured pullout is the answer. You either lack the intellectual firepower or good faith to see this for what it is. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the former, which means all you want is a continuation of war, you're unwilling to entertain other options. Ergo, you're a warmonger.
But, you know, if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position, you're welcome to leave and I'll stop doing it.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 18, 2005 2:07:37 PM
That's moronic.
Really? And what part of my statement is untrue?\
1) We are at war.
2) Dave knows who the enemy is as demonstrated.
3) Peace at any cost is stupid and it's the position of many of those morons who support Sheehan. It is a child's position.
There's a serious argument going on over how best to complete this war, and many, many folks are coming to the conclusion that a structured pullout is the answer.
Well, Sir, There are also serios arguments going on that do not include a pullout as Dave has posted. So what? You're right and anyone who disagrees with you gets their good faith of "intellectual firepower" questioned? Spare us all the insults and realize first that *yours* is not the only position....not by a longshot.
...if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position, you're welcome to leave and I'll stop doing it.
Why not just have a little "good faith" yourself and understand that not all that disagree with your positions or reasoning are somehow below your obvious sduperior intellectual capacity.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 2:25:03 PM
then fuck the party.
Look how anyone could have been for the war in the beginning is beyond me. given all the distrust bush and his minions peddling the war ad already earned by the time they started peddling the war.
Also, arguements such as "if we leave without an established government etc. it will be chaos and millions more will die" is simply bullshit
that is what people were saying in the days of vietnam. we cant leave until somehow some magical political progress has been accomplished. your mention of oil is important though and it is the reason we cant just turn iraq over to the savages they are right?
look, insurgents are motivated by one thing and one thing only. the infidel is in their home turf. now if we leave we can accomplish two things.
yes the insurgents will say, see we beat you ha ha, we are the stronger etc. but they are saying that everytime an american soldier on muslim soil dies.
so much for that argument.
number 2 you accomplish getting the infidel off muslim soil. so they will no longer have reasons to bomb people. or to influence others into bombing people.
so get the hell out and apease the terrorists. im ok with that because by doing so you deflate any influence the terrorists may have over anyone right now.
then you can start damage controlling and dropping loads of cash into iraq so that they can get their economy moving.
enough with this should we stay or should we go bullshit.
let the iraqis work out the constitution, let them have a refferendum, let them have the elections. and then start pulling our asses out.
thats it. we need to give them security for all their politicial processes then leave once the processes are complete.
Posted by: media in trouble | Aug 18, 2005 2:27:28 PM
Perhaps you would also like to call Dave Johnson and most of the Democratic leadership "War Mongers" as well?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 2:29:42 PM
"1) We are at war.
2) Dave knows who the enemy is as demonstrated.
3) Peace at any cost is stupid and it's the position of many of those morons who support Sheehan. It is a child's position."
And only a child would misrepresent it as you have. It's not peace at any cost, it's not peace at the cost of nuclear war. This is a total non-sequitur. It's peace with a structured pullout. That's the opposing position. But you insist on misrepresenting it as if we just want to turn the country over to bin Laden and place a nuke in South Denver. As I said, you're either a liar or an idiot. And as I said before, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just a liar. Otherwise, you wouldn't be misrepresenting opposing political positions like you are. When you start arguing with good faith, maybe you'll get some.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 18, 2005 2:31:35 PM
Good for Russ Feingold for being forthright and willing to start pushing on something that is going to happen regardless, since those National Guard forces can only serve overseas for two years out of five and there will *have* to be a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq anyway. We should be making some tough decisions starting now about what sort of Iraq we will leave behind, instead of sticking to eternal hope as an ever more forlorn plan.
Posted by: David W. | Aug 18, 2005 2:38:09 PM
As I said, you're either a liar or an idiot.
I feel the same way about you. Go figure.
Do you seriously believe that civil war will not occur if we pull out? Does that simply not matter?
And who do you think will win power? Think they will not continue their jihad?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 2:42:43 PM
How funny, then, that you spends so much time on my site. And no, I don't believe a civil war is any likelier if we have a structured withdrawal than if we stay in another year and then have a structured withdrawal. There is, unfortunately, zero evidence that we're making anything better. Maybe giving Iraqis something to work towards would stop it from becoming worse. More to the point, maybe taking us out of the picture would sap the insurgency, and if they tried to continue in an all-Iraqi society, they'd lose their support base. God knows we've not been able to stop them.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 18, 2005 2:53:23 PM
Dave W.
"since those National Guard forces can only serve overseas for two years out of five and there will *have* to be a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq anyway."
i sincerely doubt that we meaning the administration has to do anything and that they can't bend any rules that are currently in place while doing so.
its bullshit, they bent the rules to start the war, they bent the rules to torture people, they bent the rules to invade yoru privacy, and they have been bending all kinds of rules within their military deployment policy to keep soldiers circulating through iraq. see stop loss violations, see also the policy to treat iraq veterans during their leave for battle fatigue so that once they are barely cured of their psychological ills, they get sent right back in. Frontline and NOW have both done stories on this.
as for Fred,
Civil war is already upon iraq, (like sunni insurgents blowing up shiites etc.) and we brought it there. congratulations! wanna teddy bear? a lollipop?
Posted by: media in trouble | Aug 18, 2005 2:54:05 PM
Fred, Please don't accuse me of not being from the left wing of the Democratic party! I think Cindy Sheehan is a great American who is finally bringing the debate about the war into our living rooms!
Let me be clear about what I am saying. America "broke it." Responsible people don't make a mess and then "withdraw." Bush invaded "in our name" and now here we are.
But here is the key point. There is nothing that any of us on "the left" can do about this -- Bush is going to do what he is going to do.
Bush is going to go ahead and do the chickenshit and criminal thing anyway -- it's who he is. And that probably means abandoning the Iraqi people just before the next election because it will help the Republicans -- and leaving behind the resulting national security nightmare that we will face as a result. And when that happens the Republicans will be looking for cover -- someone to pin it on. It's what they do.
Cut and run it is not only illegal and immoral in this instance -- advocating it is politically stupid. It provides Bush with cover -- someone to blame for the consequences after he cuts and runs.
Posted by: Dave Johnson | Aug 18, 2005 2:55:42 PM
While I might not agree with reasons, Dave has a point. He is standing in the present and saying "What is best for Iraq NOW" and he is right that a pullout is a dumb idea.
And Dave, you can be from the left wing. You can disagree to reasons why we are there or intentions, etc. However, we do share the same common-sense opinion of not just walking the whole thing as many of your buddies do.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 3:01:01 PM
and how is feingold's idea cutting and running when his date is a whole year and a quarter away?
or in other words,
when does leaving iraq not count as "cutting and running"?
Im not talking about leaving today or tommorow. i am all for leaving when bush says we will start thinking about leaving. and by all indications that was whenever the iraqi political processes had taken place.
along with training of troops. but somehow training of troops takes too frekin long. and there has to be a time when the troops in iraq can train others.
ps. Dave, I don't think that leaving now exacerbates any threat to national security. the threat has already happened by us invading, and with every casualty (particularly iraqi casualties) the threat just gets worse.
is there any doubt that any future terrorist in training won't get to see hours and hours of video and pictures of what americans did to iraqis during these past 2 years?
your sadly mistaken if you dont think so.
Posted by: media in trouble | Aug 18, 2005 3:13:54 PM
Thanks, Fred. It's not just "my buddies" though. It's what Bush is going to do. It will come to be in the interest of The Party to just get out of the mess they made -- soothing an angry public just before the election. And they will be looking for scapegoats.
For decades after Republican President Ford pulled us out of VietNam the Right blamed Democrats.
(LBJ was negotiating an end to the war in 1968 and the Nixon campaign made a deal with the South Vietnamese government to sabotage those talks. Then Nixon kept that war going so he could announce it was "over" just before the 72 elections.)
Posted by: Dave Johnson | Aug 18, 2005 3:17:02 PM
"i sincerely doubt that we meaning the administration has to do anything and that they can't bend any rules that are currently in place while doing so."
It would take an act of Congress and the signature of the President to change the current law which says that National Guard troops cannot be based overseas for more than two out of five years. That is not the sort of change a simple bending of the current rules can do.
Unless you sincerely think that Congress and the President, in an election year, will make such a change as more and more of the Guard complete their second tours in Iraq, the cold hard fact is that the U.S. must start drawing down its forces in Iraq starting next spring.
Russ Feingold has properly concluded that we are being ill-served by the sort of policy fog that is trying to have it both ways in Iraq, by claiming that we need to stay the course but on the other hand having to draw down our forces there anyway. Again, hope is not a plan and it is time we put a real plan in its place.
Posted by: David W. | Aug 18, 2005 3:25:11 PM
and how is feingold's idea cutting and running when his date is a whole year and a quarter away?
or in other words,
when does leaving iraq not count as "cutting and running"?
Im not talking about leaving today or tommorow. i am all for leaving when bush says we will start thinking about leaving. and by all indications that was whenever the iraqi political processes had taken place.
along with training of troops. but somehow training of troops takes too frekin long. and there has to be a time when the troops in iraq can train others.
ps. Dave, I don't think that leaving now exacerbates any threat to national security. the threat has already happened by us invading, and with every casualty (particularly iraqi casualties) the threat just gets worse.
is there any doubt that any future terrorist in training won't get to see hours and hours of video and pictures of what americans did to iraqis during these past 2 years?
your sadly mistaken if you dont think so.
Posted by: media in trouble | Aug 18, 2005 3:27:26 PM
David W.
"It would take an act of Congress and the signature of the President to change the current law which says that National Guard troops cannot be based overseas for more than two out of five years. That is not the sort of change a simple bending of the current rules can do.
Unless you sincerely think that Congress and the President, in an election year, will make such a change as more and more of the Guard complete their second tours in Iraq, the cold hard fact is that the U.S. must start drawing down its forces in Iraq starting next spring."
i like your pragmaticism. however, i remind you that republican hawks that preach the marching of freedom in iraq run congress, and half the democrats on the other side of the aisle, are taking the hillary/ Biden appraoch.
If it comes up in Congress, it will be a test of Democratic foreign/defense/troop policy. since somehow defense and troop are not yet divided as an issue (as I think they should be for Democrats) then I think many Democrats would vote for that.
just as they voted for the war thinking they didn't want to be on the wrong side of history or something. this is very similar, cuz if many more people take David Johnson's/Hillary DLC stance, then we can pump troops into Iraq at the drop of a hat so long as the mission remains vital to our national security.
do you smell the sarcasm? do you now see the possibility of bending the rules being pretty easy?
and you bet your ass president "i dont veto" wont veto something that will help the war hurt the soldier.
just look outside his ranch. fishing and napping are way more important than any troop mom
Posted by: media in trouble | Aug 18, 2005 3:32:33 PM
The line we heard from the GOPers last year, "Iraq is NOT Vietnam", needs to be repeated over and over... with attribution.
Posted by: stumpy | Aug 18, 2005 3:45:41 PM
Peace at any cost is stupid and it's the position of many of those morons who support Sheehan. It is a child's position.
As opposed to the deep reasoning behind "they hate us for our freedom."
Posted by: Otto Man | Aug 18, 2005 3:54:25 PM
Dave Johnson is right. Ezra is very wrong. Very wrong, both morally and politically.
If Ezra thinks the Democrats can avoid the disastrous split of the late sixties by becoming the peacenik party and thus gain dominance in red and purple states...
I mean, Jesus.
The establishment is right on Iraq here. And the answer is to run to the right of Bush on Iraq, with Hilary's 4 new divisions and a committment to do the damn thing right.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 18, 2005 4:02:07 PM
