By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – July 24, 2007
In my column on this subject last week, I noted that from
the beginning of his Presidency (or Cheney’s, however you want to look at it)
Bush set out to achieve what I have on more than one occasion termed a “coup
d’etat in slow motion.” Upon gaining the office this man first embraced
the powers truly vested in him by the Constitution. Then, starting with
The “Patriot” Act, he proceeded to gradually and steadily expand them way
beyond their Constitutional limitations (see Articles I, II, III, and
VI). It should be noted that when that Act was introduced, Bush did not
have full control of the Congress. The Democrats still held the Senate.
But at the time they were “lead” by the totally spineless Tom Daschle.
They thus meekly acquiesced to the passage of what on more than one occasion I
have noted is this essential element of the US equivalent of the Nazi German
Enabling Act of March, 1933 that made Hitler a dictator. To my
recollection, only Sen. Gene Feingold of Wisconsin had the cojones to vote
against it. Then came the disaster of the Kerry/Shrum Presidential
campaign, the “Military Commissions Act,” and etc.
And so, what do the Democrats do now in terms of the
Presidency? This is a question that I have dealt with numerous times
since I first began writing this column almost 3 ½ years ago.
Nobody in any position of consequence has ever paid the slightest bit of
attention to what I have had to say, but that has even to this day not
convinced that I have been wrong. Time and BushCheney (or CheneyBush if
you will) march on. I become more convinced than ever that when the next
Presidential campaign gets underway, the Democrats must make major changes
their approach (and the change should take place even now in the pre-primary
season as well). If they do not, they will lose again. If they do,
and especially if “I’d-like-nothing-better-than-to-be-dictator” Giuliani wins
it for the Republicans, we might not see another Presidential election for a
long time, even if in the first instance the Democrats were to retain control
of one or both Houses of Congress. So let’s have another go at the
subject.
First and foremost, the Democrats have to seriously examine
the work of the two brilliant political strategists whose combined efforts have
given the Republicans the Executive Branch dominance that they have enjoyed for
the last six-plus years. First, is Lee “Willie Horton” Atwater.
Over and over again, I have talked (and will talk again, many times leading up
to Nov. 4, 2008) about his primary mantra: “Always Attack, Never Defend.”
Democrats just don’t know how to do this. The current perfect example is
their response to the Republican attack on them on the Libby commutation
thing. Like Captain Renault, the Claude Rains character in the Humphrey
Bogart/Ingrid Berman movie “Casablanca,” they were “shocked, shocked,” that
Bush could do such a thing. After all, hadn’t he said he would fire
anyone in his Administration found guilty of wrongdoing? And now he has
commuted the sentence of the convicted felon, even before his appeal is
heard?
Well, first of all they shouldn’t have been shocked.
Bush has been doing such things and much worse all along. Second, they
opened themselves right up for the typical Republican counter-attack. And
yes, it was counter-attack. There was no defending Scooter Libby here.
Right into the Big Lie Attack mode. First of all, they said, there was no
crime. Everyone (sic) knew that Valerie Plame was CIA (no, not true, but
what the hey). Second, “everyone” knew that she sent her husband Joseph
Wilson on the Niger expedition (no, not true, but what the hey). Third,
“everyone” knew that the report he came back with showing that the
“Yellowcake-to-Saddam” thing was a fiction was itself a lie (no, not true, but
what the hey). Fourth, “everyone” knew that Scooter’s incorrect
recollection of the events (like that Tim Russert told him that Plame
was an undercover CIA agent, not the other way round, as Russert testified to
in open court, under oath) stated before the Grand Jury was simply the product
of a faulty memory, not lying. Well, the jury didn’t believe him, but
what the hey.
Then, just a couple of days later, given the opening by none
other than Hillary Clinton, they are right into their classic “Two Wrongs Make
a Right” Attack mode: “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. Bill Clinton pardoned this
one and that one and this one and that one.” Clinton actually granted 140
pardons at the end of his Presidency, although none were to felons convicted of
obstructing justice in an investigation of a violation of national security
law. But Clinton was really into the pardoning thing, for all of the
reasons Bush gave for giving the commutation to Libby: upstanding citizen,
national service, family considerations, illness, and etc.
Of course, Bush, as Governor and President, to date has
almost never seen a commutation/-pardoning opportunity he liked. All of
those defense attorneys who are now trotting out the reasons Bush gave for his
Libby-action should not hold their breaths waiting for him to accept them in
any other cases (except of others of his staff who committed similar crimes, or
worse, of course). And so, oh boy, did the Republicans have a field day
with the Clinton record. Fascinating that it came out a couple of days
later that the lawyer for the number one Republican Clinton-pardon poster boy,
one Marc Rich, was none other than, guess who? I. Lewis “Scooter”
Libby. But, while I don’t sample the Republican Scream Machine across the
country, I doubt that that fact has shut them up on the Clinton
pardon-thing.
So what to do? First, attack, baby, attack. One,
go for the “two wrongs make a right” argument. Show how they use it over
and over again to distract the American people from the real issues at
hand. Ask how the supposed Party of Probity can possibly make that
argument. Cut to the chase: Libby was convicted, fair and square.
Bush never commutes or pardons. This one smells to high heaven of
possible cover-up. And what is the White House doing in its
presence? Covering up even more on even more issues (you can supply the
list). Don’t touch Clinton’s pardons and “why they were different,”
“Clinton had a different standard throughout his Governorship and Presidency,”
and so on and so forth. Keep the focus where it should be: on Libby and
Bush, not on Clinton and Rich.
Second, on what the Democrats must do for 2008 is that they
must learn Karl Rove’s principal political lesson: the key to winning elections
in control of the agenda. (Actually, he learned this one from Atwater
too: Willie Horton, Dukakis-in-the-tank, and so on, but Rove has become the
past-master of it.) And so in 2004, for example, we had the Swift-boat
massacre, Kerry-on-the-windsurfer, the state Gay Marriage amendments,
Kerry-the-flip-flopper, in fact anything but the Bush record. Kerry/Shrum
just let this happen. No response, no attack, all defense, all
generalities, all fighting the battle on Rove’s turf. If the Dems do that
again, the outcome will be the same, no matter how low Bush’s poll ratings sink
this time.
Almost all of the Republican candidates are running away
from Bush as fast as their little legs can carry them (without, of course,
running away from any of Bush’s policies except immigration). So first on
the Democratic agenda must be to hang dear old George (and Dick too, now)
around the neck of every single one of them. Sure, he ain’t running, but
the Dems have to make it out as if he were, just as the Republicans are going
to be running against Bill Clinton, especially if the candidate is
Hillary. Overwhelmingly the American people have had enough of Bush, and
not only on Iraq. To win, the Dems must place him front and center on the
Republican ticket, even if he ain’t there.
Third, the Democrats must begin realizing now that they may
not have what many of them think will be their number one issue, Iraq.
The Republican pressure is building on Bush to “do something” about Iraq. And
he probably will. That “something” will not be withdrawal. After
all, as I think I have proven in the pages previously, the number one goal of
CheneyBush (and in this case it really is CheneyBush) in Iraq is the creation
of Permanent War. But Permanent War does not require the number of
American troops now on the ground. They could be reduced significantly as
CheneyBush once again move the goal posts and redefine “victory.”
So, there will still be troops on the ground in the fall of
2008, but it could have been made to appear as if there had been a
change of policy, based on “new information.” Republican strategists have
been talking for quite some time about the “need to keep troops in place,” to
avoid “certain disaster for the Iraqi people,” as if the Iraqi people certainly
have not already been smitten with disaster by BushCheney policy. But
there could be few enough troops to create confusion in the minds of certain
American voters and to enable the Republicans to say to Democratic critics “we
gave you what you demanded [when they didn’t, of course] so what are you
complaining about.” The answer to this is three-fold. First, the
Democratic position must be that of Gov. Bill Richardson: no American troops on
the ground in the region and no US bases in Iraq. Second, the position
must be that no Republican policy for Iraq has worked to date, re-visiting, the
chain of Bush “definitions of victory,” so why should this one. Third,
the Democrats must begin to use the theme: “Republican policy is nothing but a
recipe for Permanent War.”
So, if “Iraq, modified” is second, what then should be the
third major agenda item after Bush? Nothing other than what BushCheney
have done to Constitutional Democracy in our great country (see Part 2 of this
series, July 11, 2007, for the overview on that one as well as numerous
previous TPJ columns of mine; see the list below). Yes indeed, it is
going to take some doing to make the Constitution the co-number one agenda item
for the Democrats with Bush. But think about this. There is a sign in
my dentist’s office that says, “If you don’t take care of your teeth, they will
just go away.” If we don’t take care of our precious Constitution, it
will just go away too.
Are there additional agenda items for the Democrats as they
seek to take control of the agenda for 2008 and keep it? There surely
are. And they will surely be the subjects of future columns.