I have said before that the Democrats ought to get credit for defending civil liberties against perceived threats from Bush's security policy. That, after all, is one of the reasons we keep Democrats around. But that doesn't mean they will get credit. If you set up the question so that the public has to choose one of two important policy aims over the other, then someone has to lose. And that is precisely what they have been doing on the warrantless search question. This is not lost on the more sober of Democratic strategists. From the Washington Times:
Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security. . . .
"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.
The Democrat's problems on national security are well defined in polls.
"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses. . . .
Recent polls say 56 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing to protect the country from another terrorist attack. . . . Republicans led the Democrats by 40 percent to 36 percent on questions about which party can keep the country safe, 45 percent to 40 percent on which party can be trusted on national security and 48 percent to 38 percent on "which party can be trusted more to fight terrorism," the DLC said.(Hat tip to Real Clear Politics).
But the problem for Democrats goes beyond their political image. It is already creating dangerous divisions within the party. From the New York Sun:
Liberal challengers of Senator Clinton's re-election bid said yesterday that the grants and contracts she secured earlier this month for contributors to her political action committee will help their efforts at casting the former first lady as an ally of big corporations and a politician for hire.
A former union leader, Jonathan Tasini, who recently decided to challenge Mrs. Clinton, largely because of her support for the Iraq war, said he is not surprised Mrs. Clinton secured federal money for individuals and businesses that have donated to her campaign committees. The New York Sun reported yesterday that Mrs. Clinton and Senator Schumer directed $123 million from the Department of Defense budget to New York projects that were not specifically requested by the Pentagon. The practice is common among lawmakers in Washington.
"We know where much of her money comes from - from large corporations who clearly anticipate something," Mr. Tasini said. "Whether it be Wal-Mart or Citigroup or law firms like Skadden Arps, these people don't contribute because of good will toward mankind. They expect something. And the denials about this just don't meet the smell test. I think all Americans know that corporate contributions are directly related to the help they get."
Whether Hillary Clinton is a viable Presidential candidate remains to be seen. But she is surely an asset for the Democratic Party, if only for the sake of her fame and that Senate seat. Tasini's challenge is very unlikely to do real damage to Ms. Clinton, whose seat is probably safe in perpetuity. The question is: does he know this, or does he just not care? If the latter, it means that the Democratic hard left is willing to kamakaze its own over the war question. Michael Crowley, writing in The New Republic, has a more disturbing analysis, at least for Democrats.
Superficially, House Democrats have stood fairly united since the 2004 election. But under the surface lie deep fissures between the caucus's liberal Pelosi faction and its moderate Hoyer faction--particularly over the Iraq war. Until recently, however, Pelosi had kept a low profile on the war--presumably aware that her Bay Area-liberal image goes over in rural swing districts about as well as erotic performance art. "She has been personally very skeptical of Iraq from the get-go and I think in the interest of the broader caucus has put aside her own strong views and tried to keep the caucus unified," says Adam Schiff, a moderate Democrat from California. That's why some Democrats were stunned that she so conspicuously embraced Murtha's withdrawal plan earlier this month. To some Democrats, Pelosi should have let Murtha remain in the lead. "Murtha was clearly the key messenger on this," says a former House Democratic leadership aide. Now the Murtha plan can also be called the Pelosi plan, with all the culturo-political baggage that entails.
But the dynamics of Pelosi's world made keeping mum impossible--even if it meant alienating moderates like Hoyer. For months, she has faced rising pressure on several fronts. Within the caucus, there is her emboldened liberal base, including the 70 members of the House's Out of Iraq Caucus, who increasingly believe they speak for the public. "They stand up in meetings saying the American people want to get out," says a senior House Democratic aide. (Never mind that polls show the public still values success over withdrawal.) When she ran for leader in 2002, Pelosi promised to draw clearer distinctions with Republicans, and that's what her liberal allies expect. "The American people are thirsty for Democrats to offer an alternative on Iraq, and I would argue that it's a dereliction of our responsibility not to provide one," says Florida Representative Robert Wexler. Pelosi is also strongly influenced by her highly liberal inner circle. In addition to her top confidant, the combative Miller, others with Pelosi's ear include Rosa DeLauro of New Haven; Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto; and Jan Schakowsky, a fiery crusader from Chicago's upscale Lakefront area. All are critical of the war.
Perhaps even more relevant is what Pelosi hears outside of Washington. Liberal donors on the fund-raising circuit constantly tell her that Democrats are timid on Iraq. "She's been catching a lot of heat on the road," says the senior House aide. Pelosi has even been taking flak in her district for her relatively low profile on Iraq. "Pelosi has played it safe, placing politics and fund-raising over policy and conscience," charged a May 2005 letter in The San Francisco Chronicle. Another fumed that "Pelosi does accept our illegal invasion and our continued occupation of a country whose people want us out. I find it difficult to accept that she speaks for San Francisco to the world." Last month, one vituperative antiwar blogger declared her the "Shame of San Francisco." Says a House Democratic leadership aide, "You've got our base saying, 'Where the hell have you been? You've got no spine.'"
It is worth remembering that Democratic spine was represented in 2004 by Howard Dean. Instead of backbone, the Democrats went with a wish bone, and almost won. My guess is that this will make it hard for the Dems to unite behind a viable candidate next time round.
Recent Comments