December 13, 2003
TRAPPED M.D.:
Iraqing Their Brains: How can the Democratic candidates escape the trap they set for themselves? (Michael Kinsley, Dec. 11, 2003, Slate)
The slow souring of the American adventure in Iraq is a promising and legitimate issue for the Democrats. And they will benefit from it no matter what they say. But what they say about Iraq is a problem for the contenders who supported Bush's decision to go to war. Do they now think that support was a mistake?If they say yes, supporting the war was a mistake, they are declaring that in a test case of the most important decision a president must make—when to go to war—they got it wrong. And if they try to explain their way out of this by talking about how the Bush administration "deceived the American people," they sound like George Romney, who was laughed out of the 1968 presidential race for saying he had been "brainwashed" into supporting the war in Vietnam.
On the other hand, if they say no, I don't regret my support for this war, the question naturally arises: Well, if everything you're complaining about doesn't change your mind about the war itself, why are you making such an unholy fuss? Apparently, if you had been president, we'd be in the same mess.
Like mice frustrated in a maze, the candidates seek escape routes out of this logical trap. [...]
A year ago, everyone was saying: Let's get practical. Only a Democrat who supports the war against Iraq will have any hope of defeating Bush. The idea was: Get Iraq off the table, and make room for domestic issues. Maybe this is still the right idea. But many Democrats now want Iraq as an issue. And the only Democratic candidate who can use it effectively is the one who decided not to be practical.
Except that 6 in 10 Americans--in what is supposedly a 50-50 country--support the war, even after months of negative coverage. As we start to hand over control to the Iraqis is that number really going to go down considerably? Does it make sense to stake your party's future on the chance that it might? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 13, 2003 6:08 AM
For Michael Kinsley, effective use of an issue means getting people in Manhattan and Washington and Boston to listen to you. But, the rest of the country knows better. Kinsley seems to spend too much time reading his own vitae.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 13, 2003 9:24 AMThe Democrats may have a problem avoiding the (rat) trap; but Kinsley has avoided it by running on a tread mill. Will he ever get off it or will his headstone read "Not In My Name."
Posted by: genecis at December 13, 2003 11:07 AM"The slow souring of the American adventure in Iraq..."
The longer the left believes that things are getting worse in Iraq, the longer it will be before they run back to the right on the issue, and the worse they will do in the election.
That's why the media's treatment of Iraq is a mixed bag--eventually, it will become clear that Iraq is far better now than it was before. But until it becomes undeniably clear, it is useful for us Republicans for the media to continue assuring the Left that things are worse.
Posted by: Timothy at December 13, 2003 12:26 PM