Shifting Momentum?
This NY Times article asks if the facts on the ground in Iraq is changing the momentum of Next November’s elections. Here’s how they word it:
But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war, a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters, they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.
If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.
“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it, how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”
The fact that the NY Times is even talking about Iraq in such terms is news by itself. the fact that they’re talking about the changes in Iraq changing the political landscape is stunning.
They’re right, though, in opining that President Bush is less of a drag on GOP candidates than he was in 2006. In short, it isn’t 2006 anymore is reality, not just a cliche.
It’s still much too early to make a prediction on next year’s elections but it isn’t too early to say that this isn’t good news for Democrats. Hillary spent the last eighteen months trying to sound hawkish while pandering to the MoveOn.org types. Her statement that “If President Bush won’t end the war, I will” will return to bite her in the backside.
Michael O’Hanlon offers some good advice when he says that “Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.” Unfortunately, it’s advice they needed a year ago. It’s too late now because people have heard the endless drumbeat of anti-war diatribes since the start of the year. They won’t forget those rants either. They won’t forget Harry Reid’s and John Murtha’s disastrous predictions. They won’t forget how they wanted to stop the surge right when the Anbar Awakening was getting its legs. They won’t forget the dramatic drop in casualties, both amongst the Iraqi civilians and our troops.
They won’t forget because that’s my job. The byword in the Clinton administration was that “Americans have a 10 second span.” That’s why I’m thankful for blogs because now I can remind people every 11 seconds or so.
Despite all the positive things that they wrote in this article, they couldn’t resist this help for the Democrats:
At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings, like the market bombing that killed at least eight on Friday in Baghdad.
The trend is set. Violence has dropped precipitously for 6 straight months. What constitutes a trend with the NY Times? A year? Two years? A month if a Democrat is president?
One thing’s for certain: They wouldn’t be the NY Times without them being Democrat apologists. If they keep writing articles like this, though, I won’t have any complaints.
Technorati Tags: Iraq War, NY Times, Election 2008, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Michael O’Hanlon, Hillary, President Bush
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog