Doug Schoen, partner to Hillary's pollster Mark Penn: A Dangerous Game of 'Chicken' for Democrats

[flpoljunkie]

And he manages to dis Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in the process...worth reading in its entirety

A dangerous game of 'chicken' for Democrats

By Doug Schoen
April 23, 2007

DEMOCRATS and Republicans in Washington are headed toward a showdown. At issue is how to provide an additional $100 billion in supplemental funding to support American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressional Democrats are intent on passing legislation that will include a requirement -- or at least a call -- to bring the troops home next year.

President Bush insists he will accept no such provision, even if it means vetoing legislation that would provide badly needed money for the troops in the field. The American people, he maintains, will fault Democrats if that happens. In short, the politicians in Washington are playing a high stakes game of chicken -- one whose outcome will change the balance of power and have a profound effect on the 2008 presidential elections.

It's a dynamic I know well. In 1995, I was one of the political consultants who advised President Clinton during the government shutdown, which was brought on by another clash between another assertive Congress and an equally determined president. Then as now, the stakes were high. Had we failed, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich would have become America's de facto prime minister. Instead, Clinton's presidency was restored.

This time, if Democrats insist on their policy and public sentiment rallies behind them, the GOP collapse on national security issues will be complete. If, however, the public blames Democrats for risking troops in Iraq, congressional Democrats will have committed a political blunder nearly as dramatic as the invasion of Iraq itself. So who should swerve first? The lessons of 1995 suggest that Democrats today are on the verge of a major mistake.

<>In short, Democrats would do well to compromise. If that means accepting a "clean" supplemental funding bill, so be it. While Democrats must continue to criticize the prosecution of the war and the Bush administration's failure to promote political reconciliation, they should also recognize that the public has not yet elected a new commander in chief.

The 2008 election is the Democrats' to lose. Attempting to usurp the powers of the commander of the chief -- or risking the charge that Democrats have abandoned troops in the field -- is one of the few ways the party could jeopardize its seemingly impregnable position. The best chance to end the war is to make sure the next president is a Democrat.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/23/a_dangerous_game_of_chicken_for_democrats/

[illinoisprogressive]

1. i think his article is a sly promotion of the Clintons. He is a supporter

i can see him doing that but, not at the other democrats expense, like Nancy.

[blm]

2. This tactic by establishment Dems has been used against left Dems since Bush took office.

Mostly behind the scenes.

Lefty Dems have been not only opposing BushInc, the GOP and its corpmedia, but stuck defending themselves against the center and center-right Dem establishment powerstructure.

Noted historian Douglas Brinkley made this observation in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons

and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[Forkboy]

10. It's one the most disappointing things I've seen from the Dems in my lifetime.

And one of the reasons I don't consider myself "loyal" Dem anymore.Loyalty goes both ways,and this subset of the Democratic Party doesn't give two shits about the actual people.When people get pissed about comparing them to Repubs it's too damn bad.Stop thinking like them and I'll stop making the comparison.

[Hersheygirl]

3. I highly disagree with Mr. Schoen,

The 2008 in no means is the Democrats' to lose. The American people know what Bush is doing and the Democrats need to hang strong on this. If they do not, the only thing the people will perceive is that they are weak and not willing to stand up for the people. A compromise will only hurt them. They have got to remember why they were elected and represent "we the people."

[wryter2000]

12. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Vincardog]

14. The 2008 is the Democrats' to lose. NOW they can stand up and fight like hell

or lay down with the centrist corporate bushbots. It is mealy mouth fools like the op who make people say "There ain't no difference between Repubs and Democrats."

[Dhalgren]

4. It's hard not to see the MIC Democrats as just as big an enemy to

the common American citizenry as are the MIC Republicans - I am really beginning to see them as the center and right wings of the same party...

[FredStembottom]

5. I could see this argument 2 years ago.

But not now.

We are passed the point where anyone but the looniest of the neo-con Right will blame Democrats for anything having to do with Iraq.

This writer has just cloaked some other agenda of his in a very stale argument.

What his little agenda is is also probably quite irrelevant at this point!

[Larkspur]

6. Is Schoen one of those infamous Clintonista consultants who advised the Dems to support the Iraq War

If so, ignore his advice.

[IndyOp]

7. Schoen -> HOW MANY MORE HAVE TO DIE FOR YOUR POLICITAL BENEFIT?

Principle. I am watching for candidates and public servants with principle.

END THIS DAMNED IMMORAL, ILLEGAL OCCUPATION.

END THE IRAQ GENOCIDE.

[madfloridian]

8. What you need to know about Schoen, now a Fox consultant as well.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1241

He insulted Dean and Bella Abzug in the same breath.

[blm]

11. Who do average Dem voters THINK the centrist Dems really work for, anyway?

If their objective is to keep pushing the party further to the right as the WAY to win, then they have to manage the perception of those Democrats to their left, and manage the perception FOR their candidates who will most likely side with the corporate powerstructure already controlling most government, and manage the 'perception' about those Democratic lawmakers who oppose and threaten that establishment powerstructure.

So - who do they really work for over the LONG RUN?

[gratuitous]

9. One major difference between Gingrich and Pelosi

And I know this will come as something of a shock to Mr. Schoen. I hope he's lying down.

But when Gingrich pulled his little hissy fit temper tantrum, he did not have popular approval. He went up against a popular president just for the thrill of tweaking his nose. Pelosi is carrying out the will of the people in challenging a deeply unpopular president. This isn't some ideological pissing match between Newt Pindick and the Mighty Clenis; this is carrying out the mandate the voters clearly and consistently said they wanted to see happen.

[bvar22]

13. How is this a "compromise"?

Doug Schoen is advising the Democrats to compromise by "accepting a "clean" supplemental funding bill.."

How is this a compromise? :shrug:
Giving someone everything they want and getting nothing in return is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.
The Democratic Party under the current leadership has an established track record of capitulation to bush*.
It is well past time to STAND FOR SOMETHING!


My wife wanted a cat. I did NOT want a cat.
We compromised and got a cat.

:rofl:

[GeorgeGist]

15. Word

Chickenshit

[AtomicKitten]

16. it is merely a different philosophy of how to win

It isn't pushing the party to the right as some here claim - repeatedly - but rather to the center. It is the belief among some strategists that casting a wider net in the center will yield more votes.

The further left often try to paint that strategy as RW for the purpose of rallying intraparty discord; it is not RW but rather centrism. Disagreeing with that philosophy is fine but trying to excise that mindset from the party is absurd since most of America exists pretty much smack in the middle of that ideological divide. Not acknowledging that statistical factoid is one of the shortcomings of the further left with their every four-year bellicose railing against the Dem majority.

The object of the game is to attract votes, not alienate voters.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. In this specific case that is not what is being advocated.

I'd disagree with your argument for centrism, but it is off topic. Schoen is advocating capitualtion on Iraq funding - because he claims that a confrontation with Bush will be a defeat for the Democratic Party, that it will hurt us at the polls. That is not advocating centrist policies: the Democratic IWR bill is most certainly centrist, moderate, full of compromises as it is, it is advocating fight-avoidance. Two very different things.

[AtomicKitten]

20. yes, we could have an argument on the meaning of centrism

And the Dem bill as written is absolutely fine the way it stands. The point of dispute is the sticking point of the lame-ass benchmarks as written in the bill which mostly have no teeth and are sure to make Junior dig in his heels.

The Dems will either back down or IMO should advocate getting out of Iraq the same as taking off a Band-Aid, quickly, and do it NOW for obvious reasons as well as to allow enough time between now and the 2008 election to diffuse some of the recriminations that will most certainly come from the GOP. Schoen has a valid point in considering the perception vis a vis the upcoming election; the rest of his spiel I do no agree with.

My point here was pointing out the 8-degrees from Hillary Clinton that people play in connecting anybody that opens their mouth out there in the politico-sphere and using it as ammunition to automatically disregard what they have to say and in the same breath trash-talking Hillary. Happens all the time here at DU.

Ideas come from all quarters of the Democratic Party and IMO there is absolutely no reason for the puerile intraparty jihad behavior, although I am convinced much of the virulent anti-HRC rhetoric comes from non-Democrats.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. I just finished reading that. Ugh.

Yes of course ending our criminal enterprise in iraq, stopping our slaughter of iraqis comes with political risk. I'm sure the situation is exactly parallel to '95, and that our best course of action would be to stick our heads in the sand and desperately hope that the voting public will despise the ruling party so much that they will continue to vote against them, ignoring the fact that our opposition party stands for nothing and when given the opportunity does nothing. I wonder if Schoen bothered to reflect that while Clinton won that battle, our party lost the war and was chased out of majority status in the house for 12 years and in the senate for 6. Ginrich knew he had no choice but to try to enact his bullshit contract with america, he tried and failed in the short term but in doing so he locked in his new republican constituency and set the stage for their legislative victories from 98-04.

If we follow Schoen's advise and do nothing we will deserve the drubbing we get.

[sampsonblk]

19. Mannnn PHUCK this guy!

He is one of them. The issue is NOT, and I repeat NOT about whether to fund the troops. The issue is about whether to fund the OCCUPATION of Iraq. If we discuss on thier dishonest terms, of course we will lose! Nothing complicated about that.

This guy should pull his head out of his arse and get on the team.