Give Me a Freakin' Break

Does anyone here seriously think that because we are pissed at leadership and members of Congress we will abandon the fight?  

If so, they are remarkable in their tonedeafness to the problem being at hand.

A huge part of this issue that's being missed is that the Democrats completely forgot managing the message here.

NOW they want to tell us that there are some great amendments in there.  NOW they want to message that all of this is because Bush vetoed the first bill.

A messaging problem is one of perception.  One of language.  One of strategy.  One of tactics.  And having diaries from Kos, Slaughter, et al., ad infinitum telling us to buck up, continues to miss the point entirely.  

And when they repeat the points they are making in new diaries or updates, it just sounds like they are saying, "You're politically naive or don't understand Washington, so I'll say it s l o w e r."

The time to message that, "Bush vetoing the bill was [effectively] abandoning the troops in the field" has been ALL ALONG.

How difficult is it to actually say, "The President is fine with troops dying while he and the Iraq parliment go on summer vacation."  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Does anyone seriously think there's a counter message to that?

Leadership was so busy congratulating themselves on cutting off one of the heads of the Hydra, they forgot the other six are still functioning dangerously.

We haven't forgotten it.  

And we won't.  

We will still continue to fight.  And fight, and fight. But, making our politicians better soldiers is part of that fight.  So excuse us if we take some time to hold a few folks accountable for leaving the field of battle. And pardon us while we insist that the metaphoric soldiers train a little harder for the next round, and lengthen their attention span.  

When Democratic leadership manages the message so poorly that Pat Buchanan's predictions about what the Democrats will do are both correct and prescient, there's a problem.  Democrats making Pat Buchanan look smart and the Republicans look strong, is a problem.

Those problems needs to be fixed.  Before the next round in this fight.

•  Tip jar

  by Casey Morris on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:22:55 PM PDT

•  And for the record...

  I don't think they should have capitulated, but have continued to send them the same bill.

  by Casey Morris on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:23:52 PM PDT

  •  In lieu of that...

    They should send no bill, and better than that, SHUT THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM DOWN.  No votes for ANYTHING.

    Well, I can dream, can't I?

    by beemerr90s on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:26:21 PM PDT

•  true! Pat's been calling it for weeks on

  Tucker? Scarborough? one of those, maybe both, but the fact remains.

  by PhillyGal on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:29:15 PM PDT

  •  Oh for chrissakes, Steny Hoyer

    was on Hardball the day Bush vetoed the resolution and said that we were going to take out the timelines and send Bush a clean bill.  Who needs Pat Buchanan when we have Steny?

    by nupstateny on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:55:40 PM PDT

    •  As I recall Obama said the same thing

      and took a beating on DK for it. Why did everyone see the writing on the wall except for everyone on DK?

      by Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:50:40 PM PDT

•  Yes, well, I do wish

  WE were running the place.  I am so fed up I can hardly see straight.

  Anyone who is willing to ccome to DC and take over the nuthouse please email me.

  by karendc on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:29:32 PM PDT

•  It Is A Time For Symbols Of How Pissed We Are

  Just off the top of my head somebody that writes better I should put together a letter people can download and add to, that we can send to our elected leaders saying you are in office cause of me and your claim during the campaign that you would bring our troops home. Well you had that chance and you didn't. So please send me back the money I gave to you.

  by webranding on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:32:58 PM PDT

  •  I was thinking mor...burning effigy...n/t

    by genwah on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:00:58 PM PDT

•  I agree the message has been mismanaged

  Although I've posted that, given the situation, I might well vote for this funding bill myself, even though I detest this war and have demonstrated against it both before and after it began, I completely agree that the Democrats have badly mismanaged the message.

  They should have been POUNDING, REPEATEDLY, UNMERCIFULLY, the fact that if the troops go without funds, it is SOLELY because the President has stubbornly vetoed bills that would have fully funded the troops and ended the war in a manner where the troops would have been kept safe and that the American people support.

  The Republicans are great at staying on message.  Democrats need to get much better at it.  Senator Durbin is speaking right now and doing it.  He voted against the AUMF, and voted for the bills that would have ended this war, but is voting for this appropriation.  But somehow, we need to get the word out to all of the Democratic "talking heads" that this message needs to be REPEATED, and REPEATED, AGAIN and AGAIN.

  by leevank on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:37:20 PM PDT

•  Agreed.

  When the lede on every news program is "Democrats Back Down" or "Democrats Fold" or "Democrats Surrender", somebody's media strategy, messaging operation, communications apperatus, or what have you, is seriously screwed up.  Is Rich Kotite in charge of Democratic communications by any chance?

  Pelosi & Reid could not have engineered a worse P.R. disaster if they tried.  Not to mention that they allowed GWB to string out the Iraqi quagmire even further and sacrifice the lives of more troops.

  If Pelosi & Reid turn out to have the math and this works out to Dems' benefit in the long run, I'll stand corrected.

  by Greasy Grant on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:39:08 PM PDT

  •  The math?

    Which math are the doing?  The math that is about reelection campaigns, or the one about how many young men and women will die between now and the magical dream date in September.

    And in case anyone was paying attention, the President set the stage for the September Patraeus, screw the Dems position. To wit--there will be having fighting during the summer, and thatmeans that we're making progress and the surge is working.  OR, there's less violence, so the surge is working.

    by Casey Morris on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:48:16 PM PDT

•  How could they DO this to us?

  wahwahwah

  Okay, guys.  When you are done crying, I suggest you look at a new timetable:  Impeach Bush before September.  The only way to get out of Iraq is to get rid of the current Commander in Chief.  Our timeline has been handed to us - Impeach before the whole funding shebang cycles round again.

  I'll be handing out tissues - or hankies for the environmentally sensitive.

  by Fabian on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:59:21 PM PDT

  •  It's not them doing this to US...

    that I am thinking about.

    I am thinking about how could do this to our troops and the Iraqis.

    I am thinking, "How could they do this again?"

    I am mostly thinking, "How can they NOT do this in the future"

    by Casey Morris on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:06:05 PM PDT

    •  New Commander in Chief

      The honest truth is that "Support the Troops" is an effective way to twist arms.  The other truth is that Bush is likely to keep the troops there, period.  He has no reason to bring them home since it gives him a very large club to use to beat over Congressional heads, Democrat and Republican alike.  We can't remove the troops from under Bush's command, but we sure can remove the Commander from the troops!

      If Bush was at all interested in getting out of Iraq, he'd be doing what the Baker Hamilton commission suggested - talking to regional leaders.  You know, diplomacy.  What have we had?  Cheney in Iraq?  Oh, he's Mister Smooth all right.  If you need someone to deliver a "Go f**k yourself!" message, he's your man.  Rice?  Miss Impotent?  I don't know why they don't just send Karen Hughes, because Rice has no authority that I can see.  Mister "heh-heh" Bush?  I think every world leader cringes when they see him coming.

      No, Bush has the troops and Congress right where he wants them.  Bush has Gonzales right where he wants him as well.  Bush controls the Executive Branch, the Judiciary and the Military.  Congress better figure out tout suite how they are going to bring the fight to Bush.

      by Fabian on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:05:08 AM PDT