New at Reason

David Weigel | October 23, 2006

Jeff A. Taylor warns Democrats not to count their chickens before the voters decide whether or not to hatch their eggs.

Comments

|10.23.06 @ 3:48PM|#

I think most Democratic voters are smart enough to realize that while their candidate may not be the most vocal advocate of ending the war in Iraq, giving control of Congress to the Democrats will achieve that end nonetheless.

|10.23.06 @ 3:51PM|#

If the midterm is a referendum on the Iraq war�and that is what the polls say�voting Democratic is not exactly an anti-war vote.

Republicans have done such a good job painting Democrats as anti-war that people just assume they are. Wow! Talk about a strategy biting you in the ass.

|10.23.06 @ 3:56PM|#

Yeah, I'm hoping for divided government after the election, but I just can't help but wonder if the premature celebrating isn't going to kill the Democrats this time around. I just attended a football game where a Philly player was making little kissy gestures at the fans because his team had won. Or so he thought before that ball sailed 62-yards through the uprights. Oops. Bet that smarts :)

I also agree completely with Jeff's parting shot. If the Democrats do manage to bungle this and leave the GOP in control (a bad thing in my book--the GOP needs chastisement for its behavior while in power), you just know there's going to be, yet again, more mostly baseless accusations about electoral fraud. Hey, let's undermine the citizens' faith in the legitimacy of our system to explain your string of defeats instead of maybe coming up with a coherent alternative to the jackasses in power.

I would trade the divided government, by the way, for a serious shift to third-party and independent voting, but I'm more than a little dubious about that possibility.

|10.23.06 @ 4:04PM|#

I think this goes to show that there is no organization from the Democrat Top. No one really knows what the Democrat message is and that they are all over the place.

Maybe this is a sign of things to come if the Democrats win, that the House may be in disarray with no clear direction. You might be hearing the old tune again of the Democrats accusing the Republicans of causing gridlock when the Democrats hold the majority.

Unfortunately you can keep on going with the direction of the Republicans either. Sigh.... going to be an interesting few years in DC.

|10.23.06 @ 4:07PM|#

Unfortunately you can keep on going with the direction of the Republicans either. Sigh.... going to be an interesting few years in DC.

Opps - that's suppose to be CAN'T keep on going...

|10.23.06 @ 4:08PM|#

I think most Democratic voters are smart enough to realize that while their candidate may not be the most vocal advocate of ending the war in Iraq, giving control of Congress to the Democrats will achieve that end nonetheless.

what and normally democratic voters vote for republicans??? I don't think this is the vote they are going after or the vote that will sway the outcome seeing as how they have always had it.

|10.23.06 @ 4:19PM|#

This entire column is based on 2 fallacies.

First, that the Murth Plan is "immediate withdrawal." Murtha has stated that he believes we could be out of Iraq in 6 months. if we began now. I'm pretty sure I know what "immediate" means, and that's not it.

Second, that not supporting a timetable makes your position "nearly indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush."

Let's look at five positions on the war; all times are approximate:

A) All American military personnel in Iraq throw their stuff in the back of truck and high-tail to Kuwait post-haste - ie, immediate withdrawal, cut-and-run, or retreat under fire. Maximum length of continued American presence in Iraq: 2 weeks to 2 months, give or take. There is literally no one in any elected office advocating this, although you can find it in places like "Counterpunch" magazine.

B) Begin the withdrawal ASAP, and carry it out according to a timeline based on the practicalities of an orderly redeployment of military forces. Maximum time: 6 months, or slightly longer. This is the Murtha/Cleeland plan.

C) Establish a timeline for the withdrawal of forces, based on the orderly transition of power and military responsibility from the Americans to the Iraqis. It is the Iraqis' responsibility to step up and take over greater authority at each of the points established on the timeline. Maximum time: 6 months to a year, maybe slightly longer. Add in negotiations among different Iraqi factions and regional/global powers, and you have the Kerry plan.

D) Work to establish conditions that will allow the withdrawal of American troops sooner rather than later. Ideally, this will be accompanied by the replacement of American forces with Iraqi forces, and flexibility will be shown in allowing the Iraqis to build their capacity if they can't meet our timeline, but if such improvments are not forthcoming, withdraw. Maximum time: 2 to 3 years. This is where you find people like James Webb.

E) Stay the course, as long as it takes. American troops remain in Iraq, in the forefront of the fighting, until the mission is accomplished. Withdrawals do not occur until we win the war, or until we are confident that the Iraqis can win the war on their own. Build permanent bases for a long-term presence, and continue the war indefinitely. If we do not achieve victory, continue to fight at a stalemate, because leaving Iraq on any terms short of victory is a grave defeat which threatens Americans' security. Maximum time: how long have been sitting on the 38th parallel? This is the George W. Bush plan.

The first four are variations on a theme - end the war. The fifth is its opposite - continue the war. Yes, George Bush would like to end the war, too - with a smashing American victory. And I want a pony.

But the question is not, what do we do if WWII-style victory is just around the corner? The question, what do we do if such a victory is not forthcoming. Four of the above groups say "Leave" - immediate, fast, medium, and slow. The fourth says, "Stay."

A guest who lingers in conversation by the front door after your other guests hav gone home may be slow in leaving, but he is not "indistinguishable" from one who puts his suitcase in the spare bedroom and orders a pizza.

|10.23.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Actually, option D is probably closer to 1-2 years.

|10.23.06 @ 4:24PM|#

If nothing else, the Republicans should be thrown out (and maybe condemend to Hell) for putting an inarticulate moron in the White House. The downside, from my perspective, is that the Democrats will probably continue the slavishly pro-Likud policies that have bolstered the most vicious right-wing elements in Israel. I guess you can't have everything.

|10.23.06 @ 4:38PM|#

"boost funding for alternative energy projects, which they see as a way not just to reduce greenhouse gases but to generate jobs as well."

Eureka! Boosting (government) project funding creates (net) jobs? Who knew?

It's their's to lose. Statements like this don't help their cause.

|10.23.06 @ 4:50PM|#

"Eureka! Boosting (government) project funding creates (net) jobs? Who knew?"

Er, everyone familiar with the our country's history of achieving competitive advantage through technological leadership? Ever notice the Japanese auto industry, and how it 1) is supported by the govenrnment, 2) is years ahead of own, technologically, and 3) is eating our lunch because of that?

If the people making this argument were claiming that the construction of turbines and solar arrays using today's technology would create net jobs, you'd have a point, chef. But we both know that they're talking about research in these fields.

Dan T.|10.23.06 @ 4:52PM|#

Think about how many jobs the internet (a government project) has created.

|10.23.06 @ 4:54PM|#

There is just one thing that makes me uncomfortable about declaring the Democrats victorious before the actual election. And that is the fact that most of the open seats that are key to a change of power have been fairly reliable GOP for a while. (To the tune of >60% for most.)

As the "Duke" Cunningham fiasco illuminated, a Republican storm isn't an automatic turnover to Democrats. So call me a doubting Thomas; I'll believe it when I see it.

It would be fun to see a Democrat House shut down in a show of power, though. (If they have the brass knockers to try it.)

|10.23.06 @ 5:16PM|#

Uh joshua, did you read the article?

"However, if these same enraged anti-war Dems realize before the election that there are no anti-war candidates for them to support, will they still show up to vote on Election Day? This seems to be a great unknown that is routinely overlooked when backward-looking poll data are used to try and predict future voter behavior."

This was the point I was addressing.

|10.23.06 @ 5:48PM|#

I suppose it escaped joe's notice that the Japanese economy has been stagnating for over a decade now.

Touting the Japanese economic model is sooo 1994.

|10.23.06 @ 5:52PM|#

The Chinese must have a superior economic model to ours, too, because all my clothes seem to be coming from there :)

|10.23.06 @ 5:54PM|#

RC,

I wasn't talking about the Japanese economy as a whole. I was talking about their auto industry, which continues to expand, and drive growth in other sectors.

Their banking, real estate, and agricultural sectors have been subject to non-dynamic, protectinoist measures designed to shield them from pain - the equivalent of subsidizing the manufacturing of 1995-era solar panels. The automobiles and robotics industries, on the other hand, have seen forward-looking investment that has positioned them on the leading edge of their industries.

It's worthwhile to actually look at the complex facts on the ground once in a while, instead of just applying static ideological models to undifferentiated aggregates.

thoreau|10.23.06 @ 6:00PM|#

As long as we're talking about Japanese cars, would it be racist for me to say that all of the Hondas in my neighborhood look alike?

Makes it really hard for me to find my car in the parking lot, let me tell you.

wingnutx|10.23.06 @ 6:15PM|#

DemocraticUnderground is awash in threads stating that failure to take congress will be evidence of theft.

Fun board.

D.A. Ridgely|10.23.06 @ 6:32PM|#

Makes it really hard for me to find my car in the parking lot, let me tell you.

Maybe you should get a pony like the one joe wants instead.

|10.23.06 @ 8:25PM|#

Even if the Dems can't or won't withdraw quickly from Iraq, it does not absolve George Bush and his Republican echo chamber from the responsibility of making a very bad decision to push for this war. Thus, while people may actually know that the Dems have limits on their options to play the bad hand that they will inherit from the GOP (if they take congress), people may believe that having them in office will reduce the chance of the next Iraq. Works for me.

|10.23.06 @ 8:35PM|#

I just read that article. There was no reference to BushCo being evil fascists. Are you sure you were allowed to post that here?

|10.23.06 @ 8:44PM|#

I wasn't talking about the Japanese economy as a whole. I was talking about their auto industry, which continues to expand, and drive growth in other sectors.

Joe is right we should emulate japanese auto industry and eliminate the auto workers union.

|10.23.06 @ 9:30PM|#

DemocraticUnderground is awash in threads stating that failure to take congress will be evidence of theft.

Kos too.
Kerry in Ohio in 2004, Italy, Mexico...they say there's no international left anymore, but they've all gotten the memo. If there's any doubt about winning, push the fraud meme. It's gotten to the point where if any left-of-center candidate loses, the fix must be in.

|10.23.06 @ 10:17PM|#

joe: I wasn't talking about the Japanese economy as a whole. I was talking about their auto industry, which continues to expand, and drive growth in other sectors.

I think most people are interested in the "economy as a whole," whether it's the American or Japanese economy.

Our native auto industry is in the dumper, but our economy as a whole outperforms that of Japan. The reason the Japanese auto industry continues to expand is because of demand in AMERICA for Japanese cars (thanks to a relatively robust American economy), not demand in Japan for Japanese cars.

The U.S. auto manufacturers are suffering because:

1. Parochial, bean-counter-dominated management that pushes the engineers aside;
2. A stubborn union whose members and leadership are stuck in 1965, and refuses to make reasonable compromises on health care costs and the Jobs Bank (which pays laid-off workers 95 percent of their take-home pay, even when they are not working);
3. The Jobs Bank itself, which has turned labor into a fixed cost, making it extremely difficult for the companies to cut production or close factories, as they do not see a corresponding reduction in costs when they do so. As a result, they keep making vehicles, despite tepid consumer demand, which means they resort to hefty rebates and massive sales to rental-car companies to keep the lines running. This is destroying the brand images of the various Detroit marques; and, finally,
4. State franchise laws tilted in favor of the dealers, which make it prohibitively expensive for Detroit to eliminate redundant brands and reduce the rampant badge-engineering. It cost GM BILLIONS just to shut down Oldsmobile, primarily because it had to compensate dealers for the cost of their franchises. At least Plymouth was paired with Chrysler (and usually Jeep), so when Chrysler Corporation phased out the former, it didn't have to spend much money buying out dealers. They still had the Chrysler-Jeep franchise.

Out of those four factors, only the last is a government problem. The first three were created in Detroit, and can be solved in Detroit. Indeed, they will ONLY be truly solved in Detroit.

The problem is management that won't take on the union, and is unwilling to admit it no longer holds a collective 90+ percent of the domestic market. As I said before, the union is stuck in 1965, when GM, Ford, Chrysler and AMC had 90+ percent of the market, and the UAW controlled 100 percent of the labor used to build those cars. Under those conditions, the Big Four could simply pass on the costs of each new contract to customers. Today, with the transplants (Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai) using non-union labor (and younger and healthier workers, too) to build cars, it is no longer possible for GM, Ford and Chrysler to pass higher labor costs on to the customer.

But, as you said, "It's worthwhile to actually look at the complex facts on the ground once in a while, instead of just applying static ideological models to undifferentiated aggregates."

It also helps to have knowledge of said industry before commenting on it...

|10.23.06 @ 10:29PM|#

geeber,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

Your pissy little parting shot may have made you feel good, but you didn't actually refute anything I wrote.

Nothing on R&D? Nothing at all? You remember research and development - it was the subject of the comment you were allegedly addressing. Ring a bell? No?

Oh, well.

|10.23.06 @ 10:58PM|#

joe,

GM, Ford and Chrysler are not suffering because they don't invest enough in R&D. They are not suffering because the federal government is not investing enough in R&D.

They are suffering because of deep structural problems created by inept management and a stubborn union, which creates a cost disadvantage vis-a-vis the Japanese, which, in turn has collectively prevented them from adopting improved components and materials in their vehicles.

In other words, the problem isn't that GM wasn't first with a hybrid, or that Ford isn't ahead on fuel-cell research.

The problem is that Fords, Chevys, Buicks and Cadillacs have cheaper looking interiors than the competition, because their makers can't invest as much money into nicer leathers, vinyls, carpeting and plastics, thanks to their structural cost disadvantages.

The problem is that the Japanese have five- and six-speed transmissions (Lexus, I believe, is up to seven speeds with the new LS), and overhead-cam engines, while too many of the Detroit marques are stuck with four-speed transmissions and overhead-valve engines.

Their drivetrains aren't as refined as those of the Japanese competition.

Note that these are not, in the great scheme of things, high-tech items, and do not require expensive R&D budgets.

Overhead-cam engines have been around for decades (Pontiac had one in the late 1960s - an inline overhead-cam six), and adding another gear to a transmission is not rocket science.

A car maker does not need a hefty R&D budget to determine which interior materials are nicer and more luxurious to the touch.

As I said, knowledge of the auto industry - and more importantly, why people actually buy new vehicles - is important...

|10.23.06 @ 11:52PM|#

The article has valid points, but the Dems still will pick up a majority in the House and a majority of governor's seats. I'm just predicting it won't be a HUGE majority; my guess is 219 in the House (I had 218 prior to the Foley scandal) and 27 in the governor's seats (I had 26 last week).

As for the Senate? 50-50, counting Lieberman and Sanders as Dems. Of course, the pressure of being the tie-breaker vote could prove too much for Cheney's heart, meaning that he will either quit or expire and the new veep will be... Condi? Dunno.

|10.24.06 @ 12:14AM|#

geeber, you beat me to it so now what am I supposed to talk about?

As I've experienced first hand as a design engineer, the unions cause another little problem that the general public may not be aware of: they lower the bar on the level of technology that can actually be manufactured.

This is accomplished with the union's "any worker can replace any other worker, at any time" rules.

What it means is that if you are trying to set up a new manufacturing process, one that demands [even slightly above average] skilled technicians, then you're sunk. Because the union won't let you hand pick your technicians. Or if you quietly manage to pull it off anyway, and get the techs trained to run the new process -- the minute the union finds out, they pull your trained techs and deliberately give you idiots for replacements.

The End of said new technology. You can't produce it, and this is the reason why.

This doesn't just happen in the auto industry. And it is, to this day, a driving consideration for design engineers in any industry whose hourly people are unionized.

In the 1960s, technology let us get away with this BS. Today it's killing us. One of the best things you could do to salvage the US manufacturing industrial base would be to kill the unions. Or at least force them to undergo a massive conceptual overhaul.

|10.24.06 @ 12:22AM|#

First, that the Murth Plan is "immediate withdrawal." Murtha has stated that he believes we could be out of Iraq in 6 months. if we began now. I'm pretty sure I know what "immediate" means, and that's not it.

Wow, you must not have very much experience with the Military or the Federal government for that matter. Six months is immediate.

|10.24.06 @ 3:27AM|#

E) Stay the course, as long as it takes....This is the George W. Bush plan.

A good captain goes down with his ship, you know.

If there was any reason to believe Iraq was going to settle down, it might make sense to stick it out. But at this point it would appear that Bush is the only one who doesn't get it yet.

If it wasn't for Bush, I think even many (even most?) Republicans would be ready to phase us out of Iraq.

Republicans have done such a good job painting Democrats as anti-war that people just assume they are. Wow! Talk about a strategy biting you in the ass.

The Republicans didn't even have to buy any paint. The Democrats have painted themselves that way since the Vietnam era.

What's biting the Republicans in the ass is reality. Now ain't that a pisser?


I wouldn't bet a dime on what will happen in the elections. Truth be, I think most people feel like I do -- they really don't want to vote for either party.

I figure any "independent" who is concerned about defense, is going to look at N. Korea and seriously question whether they should vote for the Democrats -- who have fairly consistently opposed missile defense funding. Not that Bush and the Republicans are funding it in an intelligent manner (my opinion), but they are funding it.

|10.24.06 @ 7:57AM|#

First, that the Murth Plan is "immediate withdrawal." Murtha has stated that he believes we could be out of Iraq in 6 months. if we began now. I'm pretty sure I know what "immediate" means, and that's not it.

Well, perhaps it doesn't mean what you think it means. To me, "immediate" means "beginning now," which according to you IS Murtha's position. And since we lack Starfleet's transporter technology, getting everyone out cannot be "instantaneous" (I think you may be confusing the two terms); a safe, responsible, and immediate withdrawal would take time, probably several months.

|10.24.06 @ 9:19AM|#

I never thought it would be the big government types that would be responsible for the downfall of Democracy. Undermining the election system will eventually ruin it. Once most people don't believe we can have an honest election stable government will be impossible.

|10.24.06 @ 9:23AM|#

Wait, the Democrats aren't presenting a unified front on either the war or domestic policy?

Sorry, folks, that's a plus not a minus. The last thing we need to counterbalance the unified GOP machine is a unified DNC machine. Dissent, argument, disagreement -- if nothing else, the last few years have taught us that these are generally bad for a party's electoral hopes, but good for the country. Besides, what would a unified DNC look like? If the past is any indication, it would be hopelessly mired in labor interests, ala Harold Meyerson, who honestly isn't the best representative for the Dem's domestic policy (he's also the absolute worst representative for libertarian Dems).

The current battle between pro-war dems, liberal dems, "new dems," etc. can only be good for a country that has suffered under eight years of oppressive groupthink. I'll also take "flip-flopping" over rigid dogmatism. Rational people change their minds when faced with new facts. That too is a good thing.

|10.24.06 @ 9:44AM|#

Don't think, Immediate Withdrawl, think Organized Retreat. No one is going to just let us leave, we fought our way in, we're going to have to fight our way out.

|10.24.06 @ 9:50AM|#

Stephen Andrew Miller, Ethan,

A six-month redeployment is certainly as "immediate" as the military can get, but that is not the sense of the term that Republicans are referring to when they say Murtha wants an "immediate withdrawal." They are making that statement to the general public, with the assumption that they are going to apply the dictionary definition of the term. The Republicans aren't describing Murtha's plan as " a safe, responsible, and immediate withdrawal." They are going out of their way to use phrases like "retreat under fire," "surrender to the terrorists," and "cut and run" in order to claim that Murtha's plan is much more immediate, and much less safe and responsible from a military perspective, than it actually is.

Genghis Kahn, (Is that a play on the Jewish surname? If so, that's a great screen name.)

"If there was any reason to believe Iraq was going to settle down, it might make sense to stick it out."

I agree. I used to be softly in the "we need to clean up our mess" camp, until it became obvious that we weren't cleaning up the mess, just making it worse.

"The Republicans didn't even have to buy any paint. The Democrats have painted themselves that way since the Vietnam era." Oh, please. Bosnia? Kosovo? Afghanistan? This isn't the 80s anymore.

|10.24.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Wait, the Democrats aren't presenting a unified front on either the war or domestic policy?

Sorry, folks, that's a plus not a minus. The last thing we need to counterbalance the unified GOP machine is a unified DNC machine. Dissent, argument, disagreement -- if nothing else, the last few years have taught us that these are generally bad for a party's electoral hopes, but good for the country. Besides, what would a unified DNC look like?

I don't know, an alternative to the Republicans that might actually entail a credible hope of policy change - and thus something worth voting for?

|10.24.06 @ 8:34PM|#

sayeth Buckshot:Don't think, Immediate Withdrawl, think Organized Retreat. No one is going to just let us leave, we fought our way in, we're going to have to fight our way out."
Well, I think we need to be more careful getting out than we were going in. But consider. Most everybody over there wants us out. The Kurds would like us around to keep the Arabs from moving on them. My position, unchanged for a few years now: we arrange a base agreement with Kurdistan. Part of that deal- the Kurd public knows they can referendum us out. We do not back up any Kurdish Gvt that curtails public franchise. We are not occupiers.
Then, we pull back. We leave behind: engineering equipment, medical infrastructure, desks, typewriters, water purification. The place needs all that. Our military efforts go to holding our positions as our people withdraw,
at our timetable, as set by the lack of us gettin shot at/blown up. Our Engineers destroy all heavy weapons & munitions sockpiles. No armor left, no big tubes. Small arms only. The Iraqis get the unblown-up equipment we leave. Big incentive there: we are leaving. They need the equipment.
We stop funding deathsquads. We leave open the option for US military engineers & medical people to return to run equipment, aftwer the internecine butchery peters out. Theycant eat oil. At some point they will want added outside engineers/weldors/mechanics/logistics people to get the oil running. Transparent, open contracts for that, let world wide.
We dont whine & snivel. We remember we spent billions on Saddam, & squandered billions destroying the place.
We suck it up.
We put certain heads on stakes around the Capitol Building as a reminder to its inhabitants: they are accountable. Our soldiers mean something.