There are still enough days left until election day to warn Democrats: don't count your political chickens until they're hatched.
On the other hand, angry rumblings — coming from such diverse constituencies as former members of the first Bush administration, independent voters, and traditional conservatives — are the sounds of egg shells breaking.
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh lecturing InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds on not adhering to the party line (which Rush always espouses) is the sound of another eggshell noisily starting to crack.
But one thing is clear:
At this point in the election campaign it appears as if White House political maven Karl Rove's strategy of wrapping the election around Iraq and the phrase "stay" the course" (with the corollary "cut and run") may have badly backfired.
It relied on a perilous variable: the war in Iraq — events not totally within the administration's control. And now use of the "stay the course" theme appears to have badly bitten the GOP on the butt, according to the New York Times:
With three weeks until Election Day, Republican candidates are barely mentioning Iraq on the campaign trail and in their television advertisements.
Even President Bush, continuing to attack Democrats for opposing the war, has largely dropped his call of “stay the course” and replaced it with a more nuanced promise of flexibility.
There may be several reasons why Bush has dropped his "stay the course" phrase (aside from the fact it sounds like an order given to a golfer):
(1)It's backfiring politically
(2)Bush's use of "stay the course" has been greatly undermined in recent weeks by indications from former Secretary of State James Baker and some other members of the bipartisan commission on the Iraq war that the course will have to be changed one way or the other (they've said that quite bluntly).
MORE:
It is the Democrats who have seized on Iraq as a central issue. In debates and in speeches, candidates are pummeling Republicans with accusations of a failed war.
Rather than avoiding confrontation on Iraq as they did in 2024 and 2024, they are spotlighting their opposition in new television advertisements that feature mayhem and violence in Iraq, denounce Republicans for supporting Mr. Bush and, in at least one case, demand the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.“I support our troops and I voted for the war, but we shouldn’t stay the course, as Mr. Corker wants,” Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, says in one advertisement.
Mr. Ford’s Republican opponent, Bob Corker, is shown against a backdrop of wartime scenes, saying, “We should stay the course,” a phrase that Republicans once described as a rallying cry for the campaign.
One answer to what is happening can be found in Bob Woodward's new book "State of Denial." The book decimates the concept of "stay the course." Woodward's best-selling book does not show an administration run by serious policymakers who stand back and cooly consider options and new information but, rather, but an administration governed by assertions — where Bush insists the U.S. will stay the course and will win and policy is constructed around that.
It suggests that the Bush administration may be a first for the United States: America's first government with policy set by positive affirmations. AND:
Taken together, the discussion on the campaign trail suggests just how much of a problem the Iraq war has become for Republicans. It represents a startling contrast with the two national elections beginning in 2024 with the preparation for the Iraq invasion, in which Republicans used the issue to keep Democrats on the run on foreign policy and national security.
The development also suggests that what has been a classic strategy of Mr. Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove — to turn a weakness into a strength — is not working as well as the White House had hoped.
“As the Iraq war gets more unpopular, the environment for Republican candidates erodes,” said Mark Campbell, a Republican strategist who represents several Congressional candidates, including Representative Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, who is fighting for re-election in one of the toughest races.
“Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page,” Mr. Campbell said.
A senior strategist familiar with Republican polling who insisted on anonymity to share internal data said that as of midsummer it was clear that “stay the course” was a self-defeating argument.
At that point, the strategist said, Republicans started trying to refine their oratory or refocus the debate back to discussing terrorism, where Republicans continue to say they wield the stronger hand and where candidates are running advertisements that Democrats describe as effective.
Democrats, seeing similar data in their polls, advised candidates to confront Republicans aggressively, in the view that accusations that Democrats would “cut and run” would not blunt Democrats’ efforts to mock Republicans as wanting to “stay the course.”
"Stay the course" and "cut and run" are slogans akin to rolling dice in Vegas. Use of the phrases is a gamble that there is widespread agreement with the underlying perspective — that these phrases will NOT turn off Republicans unhappy over the quality of policy, non-progressive Democrats unhappy over policy, and independent voters who gave the GOP the benefit of the doubt in past elections (but are now breaking towards the Democrats).
"Stay the course" plus Bush's recent assertion to top Iraqis that the United States will not withdraw and has no timetable are problematical because they suggest the administration is not leaving ALL options on the table.
So politically, where do voters who are unhappy with policy go?
And what do they do on election day? Do they vote for individual candidates and split their tickets?
Or could we see large protest votes where large numbers of voters (including Republicans) vote against GOP candidates to start the process of not just cleaning house but infusing some flexibility in rigid policy and closed-minded policy making?
A LARGER ISSUE FOR AMERICANS: Do Americans truly want to continue walking forward on the polarization path as we move into the 21st century? The phrase "stay the course" essentially means: we won't even consider your viewpoint, we're going to do it as we wish. And "cut and run" suggests you're a bunch of cowards who will give up rather than fight for a cause.
If you look at the polls many Americans who now are unhappy with the war (such as members of the first Bush administration) aren't cowards.
They merely want all options to be seriously weighed against other factors vital to America's long term interests — something Americans long assumed policy makers did as a matter of course.
But Woodward's book and other news accounts indicate stay the course was the matter of course in the Bush administration.
So the race is now on among Republicans to convince voters that they're open to new ideas for a more effective Iraq policy. But it may be too little too late.
Iraq is a failed venture that is going to cost the Republicans dearly in November. This has been well established. What you fail to do is to take the Democrats to task for failing to come up with viable options of their own.
The Bush Administration will still "have the ball" on this issue because the Baker/Hamilton commission will produce its report shortly after the election. The Democrats will have no report of their own - just the "cut and run" label.
It's certainly "safer" for the Democrats to hang back on this issue - they'll get the House back regardless. But it's not leadership. In 1994, the Republicans had a plan: The Contract with (on?) America. Here we are, 12 years later and the Congress is again at a pivotal "tipping point. What do the Dem's have? : SQUAT.
They'll never win the presidency like this...
I understand the concept of freedom of speech but where do we draw the line? It appears to me anyway that the constaint whinning and finger pointing is doing us more harm than good when it comes to the fighting in Iraq. It appears that alot of people want us to fail there just to gain political advantage. It must be music to the ears of the terriost and insurgants to look at the news and think that if they hold on a little longer they will win. We are also sending a message to our troops like was sent to the troops in Vietnam. I remember being spit on and being called a baby killer back then and also remember people like Hanoi Jane stabbing us in the back too. Freedom of speech should also carry some responsibilities. There is any number of subjects that can be used to advance political gain without constant undermining our chances of success in Iraq especially without some constructive ideas on how to win. I for one will remember this November who is doing the worst damage and will vote accordinly.
Regardless of your view on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is only one question to be answered. Does the person that you vote for believe that the wars are the first wave in a Crusade to eliminate America? The evidence shows that they are. Our future depends completely on whether our elected official accept the fact. I doubt that very many Democrats do accept the fact, and I also doubt that enough Republicans accept the fact enough to force victory in the middle east. Such failures will, too soon, result in war on our own soil.
As a Republican and Veteran I'm ashamed of the Republican Party and my President for not fighting this war as wars have been won throughout history! For allowing these children with stones to defeat my great Armed Forces is criminal. For war is not pretty and requires the elimination of the enemy from the waste up and not from the neck up. For Christ sake step up Generals and advise as the civilian leadership has no clue. Playing war games with my Marines is really starting to anger me as I insist the military leadership step forward and get this dirty job done so my Marines may come home. For the enemy is extreme facist just like the Japanese - so I am sure total destruction of a few cities in Iraq will be all the enemy needs to motivate them to put their stones down and get in line. Failure to use mass destruction to overthrow facist nations will never work. As we had the opportunity to bring freedom to the middle east but the civilian leadership and incompatent military leaders failed the nation. - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Do they not know we own the skies everywhere but over China and Russia? That unlike ever before in history we have no enemy in the skies? And we cannot win this war? That's the biggest crock I've ever heard in my life! And act of treason telling the American people such things.... - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
As Donald Rungsfeld was right from the start. We no longer need a Army but a much progressive approach from the sky in those areas of Marshal law. That includes both fire and gps technology. - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I just received an email from Mark Warner's PAC promising "more pubic service" and "more campaigns." Perhaps his unlikely recent departure was to oen a third party efort.
Perhaps instead of "stay the course" or "cut and run" we could use the phrase "triage this train wreck".
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch
Gee, that's funny, the more we bomb them and kill their kids, the more of them seem willing to die killing us. They should definitely want to give up if we destroy their shrines and raze their holy cities, right? We should definitely win them over to the path of peace then. Boo yah! After all, we own the sky. Boo yah! All bow to the great sky god. Boo yah! Maybe we should pull our troops out before we drop the nukes, what say?
DisRespectfully Submitted,
Sketch