Matthew Dowd: "Iraq's a Mistake and the People Want Out"

[Michael Tee]

from Bush's Chief Strategist of the 2004 Presidential campaign:



1. In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a "rearview" mirror issue -- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.
2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.
3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved -- and soon -- and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly.
4. The war in Iraq is now seen exclusively as a foreign policy concern, and the American public no longer supports the initiative as part of national security. This is in stark contrast to the war's beginning -- at inception, the public perceived it as directly related to fighting terrorism, and thus it was seen as a domestic policy issue connected to homeland security. Not surprisingly, the public gave it broad support. Today, this is no longer the case -- the dynamic has changed and most of the public sees no "positive" relationship between the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
I hope this analysis helps bolster the leaders who are ready to stand up for the troops and for the vast majority of Americans in this country. Not only is truth on those leaders' side, but politics is as well. It is my opinion that the best leaders are those who trust the will of the public, even if that means changing direction or admitting a mistake. This is true leadership and the kind of leadership our nation has always desired.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-dowd/war-in-iraq-wisdom-of-c_b_63677.html

[BT]

So what is stopping the dems from following Dowd's Analysis?

[Michael Tee]

<<So what is stopping the dems from following Dowd's Analysis?>>

Easy answer: lack of balls.

Possible better answer:  beholden to the same powerful interests that benefit from the attack on Iraq?

[BT]

Even better answer, when data mining downward perhaps the polls at a more local level for many dem reps do not reflect the majorities of which Dowd speaks.

[Michael Tee]

But Dowd seems to know the public mind and he's pretty confident in his assessment of it.  Which also fits into what I've read on the subject.  But of course we will never really know till there's a vote held on it.

[BT]

Perhaps overall numbers reflect his judgemnet but that doesn't mean squate when the district you represent reflects different numbers.

Remember the dems captured the house with blue dogs. Conservative democrats , sometime known as red state democrats.

You know, the ones that Markos and Moveon have targeted for reprisals because they dared to stray from the party line and actually represent the citizens who sent them to Dc.

Who'd a thought.

[Michael Tee]

Bringing me back to my two original answers, lack of balls and/or beholden to the same war-monger interests.

[BT]

beholden to the same war-monger interests

Shows a lack of respect for differing opinions.

And just a moment ago you were touting the benefits of diversity.

You certainly are a bundle of contadictions.

[Michael Tee]

I believe in diversity, I sure as hell don't see much diversity on Iraq in your "two" political parties.  Belief in diversity doesn't blind me to the fact that your politicians are bought. 

[BT]

If politicians are bought doesn't it stand to reason that political consultants are bought also?
Why should we put any credence into what Dowd has to say?

[Michael Tee]

They compete for the favour of the big donors.  The consultants help them walk a tightrope, how to get more dough from the big shots while promising the people a load of BS sufficient to get the votes to enable them to be of use to their paymasters while at the same time not alarming them.  Tough job.  Worth every cent.  What can you get away with, what can't you get away with?

BTW, I don't think the average politician is a crook who thinks, "I'll say X to get $Y from Z."  There are some like that, but generally it's  not that simple.  These guys are mostly personable, superficially friendly individuals with excellent people skills and great hair and they happen to believe in the same things that the Big Money believes in or benefits from.  The Big Money is under no special obligation to fund personable, superficially friendly individuals with excellent people skills and great hair who believe in Marxist-Leninism or other doctrines unfriendly to Big Money, so the guys you see on the screen are the guys who hooked into the Big Money.  All others need not apply.  The system virtually guarantees that you will hear only from candidates who know which side their bread is buttered on.  Once in a while, a long, long while, you will get to see a Ralph Nader or a Noam Chomsky, so that the illusion of freedom is maintained.  Once in awhile the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is let out of its cage in the basement for a few minutes of fresh air before it "self-destructs" and is banished back to its usual place.

[BT]

So you don't believe your generalized slander that all politicians are bought and paid for?

Just the ones you disagree with, perhaps?

[sirs]

So you don't believe your generalized slander that all politicians are bought and paid for?  Just the ones you disagree with, perhaps?

LOL.... dead on

[Michael Tee]

<<So you don't believe your generalized slander that all politicians are bought and paid for?>>

You really love to oversimplify your opponent's view and then shoot it down, don't you?  Cheap, BT.  Real cheap.  In the first place, I don't recall saying ALL politicians were bought and paid for, but if I did, it was obviously rhetorical.  sirs tried a similar tactic of putting words in my mouth, particularly  the word "ALL," just like you, but you can't pull it off any more successfully than he did, although it is certainly no surprise to see his monkey-like "LOL . . . dead on" comment following your own.  One cheap-shot artist applauding the other.  Congratulations, BT, you seem to have found your natural audience.

<<Just the ones you disagree with, perhaps?>>

No, just the ones whose positions oddly enough seem to benefit the same ultra-rich, ultra-conservative "benefactors" whose interests they all too obviously serve.  Naturally.  A little application of the cui bono principle usually goes a long way in clarifying the situation.

[sirs]

Yo Tee, it was YOU trying to pawn it off on me, as if I meant every breathing "all", when it was obviously rhetorical.  So typical you trying to have it both ways