About a Democratic Plan

I've been following the hand-wringing among Dem wonks about the problem with the Democratic campaign plan or the lack thereof or the lack of message discipline. My assessment has been that Democrats need to "do the right thing" -- that they shouldn't be afraid to stand up for what they believe in and, while this may not result in strict message discipline, the principles that this reflects will more closely resonate with the voting public who are increasingly desirous of something other than "more of the same", which is another way of stating Bush's tired "stay the course" message. As Josh Marshall says:

Political insiders consistently overstate the importance of slogans and programs. Political tides aren't unleashed or weathered because of message discipline or thematic fine-tuning. They come about because of failures or victories abroad, big motions in the economy, or judgments coalescing in the public mind in ways that are as inscrutable in their origins as they can be transparent in their effects.

However, I think that TPM reader TM's observation is bang-on:

To further what you said, I think the notion that there has to be a unified Democratic plan on Iraq shows a complete misreading of the political situation. Bush is the President until 2009. The Dems won't have any means of actually implementing any plan they come up with for 2.5 years, at the earliest. Additionally, any plan created now would be done without even knowing who the (hopefully) Democratic President in 2008 would be, or whether he or she would have any support for this hypothetical plan. All of this makes any plan created now worse than useless - not adding value and merely serving as a target for GOP attacks.

The 2006 Congressional election should not, and cannot be about the Democrats plan, or lack thereof, for Iraq. Instead, they should be about accountability for the actual actions of the current President and the current Congress. Any attempt to ask Democratic candidates what their plan is for Iraq should be met with a "I am not the President, and won't have the power to implement any such plan if elected, so that is a ridiculous request. What I *can* do, however, is hold this administration accountable for their mistakes. Do you want more Iraqs and disastrous responses to natural disasters? Or do you want a Congress that thinks 'checks and balances' means 'holding the President accountable', not being the President's rubber stamp. Never was the wisdom of our nation's founders more apparent in the need for a Congress as a check on the President, and never has there been a Congress as woefully inadequate in*being* a check on the President".

The question of the Democratic plan for Iraq is something that has to wait until 2008, when it is actually relevant.

Tristero quips: "It's almost as if the party consultants concluded that since the world is facing an energy crisis, the Democratic party should set an example and not have any."