Here It Is: The Democratic Plan for Iraq

Democrats,

One of the most vexing issues for the party is that you have no single, coherent plan for the Iraq war. Good news: now you do. Please read on...

Our overly-simplistic competitors in the Republican party see the world in black and white: either fight until victory or cut and run. While this is definitely simple to understand, it's also unimaginative, and clearly a losing strategy.

Something you might want to share with your constituents is that Democrats are better at planning, so it's no surprise that you have a better plan:

End the Iraq War Without Cutting and Running

1. End the Iraq War immediately because the original reasons for war are no longer concerns (no WMDs, Bin Laden isn't there, and global terrorism hasn't been stifled by us being there).
2. Simultaneously with ending the war, immediately begin a rebuilding coalition with the UN and neighboring nations.

Why is this is a better plan? Because if history started today, and we found Iraq in the situation it's in right now, we all know we would not go to war with Iraq. Instead, if we saw a strategic country like Iraq with such internal instability, we would no doubt engage -- and lead -- the global community in establishing stability and rebuilding the country to make it a functioning nation.

So, should we approach Iraq based on what it is, or based on what we thought it was? It's a no-brainer: We should approach Iraq based on the situation on the ground today, not based on faulty ideas, notions, and decisions that Republicans have made in the past.

The Democratic Party is about the future (which is why you consider yourselves progressives), and the Democratic plan for Iraq calls for looking forward, not looking back. We will win in Iraq if we stop investing in our mistakes and start investing in the future.

With this plan, all Democrats have something simple, positive, and interesting to say when asked by the media what Democrats would do differently than this administration in Iraq. By having a single, coherent plan for Iraq, you can change the conversation about "pro-war vs. anti-war" Democrats into a clear, strong and consistent progressive approach to U.S. foreign policy.

This is the kind of plan the party needs in order to regain foreign policy legitimacy. Americans want choices, and it's your job to give it to them. Stop hedging and start leading by consistently communicating a responsible, progressive alternative to Republican incompetence.

Immigration Discrimination

Democrats,

I don't quite know where this immigration issue came from. Sure, it's a national issue, but with all the things going on in the country and in the world, I'm guessing that this is a situation where their Karl Rove is trying to redirect the national anger toward the administration's handling of the war to border-leaping Mexicans.

Don't fall for this tactic.

Immigration is an issue, but so are a lot of things. Not addressing it directly does not make you unpatriotic or irresponsible. Effective governing is about picking your priorities and sticking with them until there is just cause to reassess them.

Worse, when being directly asked if you're for or against illegal immigration and stricter border control, most Democrats I've seen on TV are hesitating and vacillating. This is ugly, because it's very Kerry-esque and plays into the party persona that you live in a liberal echo chamber of hyper-empathy with no ability to be tough on policies that require enforcement.

Reframe the issue of immigration in terms of your priorities -- the issues that you believe are important.

First, sound direct in your response so it sounds like you're answering the question, but instead of answering, you sound like a patriot:

"Of course Democrats are against any illegal immigration. Most people and almost all businesses agree that immigration is critical to our economy, and continues to make America the best country in the world. It just doesn't make sense for something so important to our country to be so outside the law. Democrats are for updated laws to ensure that law-abiding immigrants are legal, and that people who come here just to exploit our country by selling drugs are shipped back to their home countries."

Next, turn this issue into a wedge that isolates the Republican Party on their failings in keeping America secure:

"There are numerous problems like immigration facing America today, and the number of problems is rapidly rising due to incompetent and misguided Republican management of this great nation. Yes, we're worried about Mexican immigration, but we're also worried about the immigration of dirty bombs through our unprotected ports, and we're worried about the immigration of terrorists through our underprotected airports. Democrats have proposed funding protecting our ports over and over again, and we support advanced technology to make flying safer, but this Republican congress has squashed all port reform bills sponsored by Democrats."

Essentially, you want to communicate that if Americans put Democrats in charge of any part of our government, you promise to focus on all of our immigration issues -- immigration issues that not only keep our country a great nation that invites new immigrants who want to live the American Dream, but "national security immigration" issues that will stop another 9/11 attack from happening.

The Indy 2006

Democrats,

According to a recent Gallup Poll, one of the key challenges for this year's congressional elections is going to be maintaining the momentum in the evolving feelings of the independent (Indy) voter.

With the hugely effective rhetoric of the Bush Administration and the entire Republican Party since 9/11, Indies stepped off their perch and landed with Republicans in large numbers, believing that foreign policy toughness was required, and that Republicans were the kind of politicians that were going to kick ass and take names.

Many asses and not nearly enough names later, the Indies (who have less ideological allegiance and therefore are less emotional and more analytical in their voting preferences) see how these so-called tough guys overreached, overspent, and overkilled -- and now Indies want an overhaul.

A core component of your messaging strategy needs to focus on responding to this shift in independent voter thinking. Be the party designed to overhaul the party-in-charge by convincing your constituents that a Democratic majority in congress will provide the required oversight and competence needed to put this country back on the right track.

Republicans Have Had "One Too Many"

Democrats,

In order to break through this year, you're going to need some metaphors that instinctively resonate with a broad set of voters who have lost confidence Bush's administration.

One overarching theme must be the one too many attack: Why is voting for your local Democrat so important this year? Because Republicans have made one too many mistakes:

• Their inability to manage the Katrina disaster
• Their inability to manage the Iraq war
• Their inability to see the problems with the United Arab Emirates running our ports

Combine these downright scary national security fumbles with the other blunders that they've made:

• Nominating Harriet Myers for Supreme Court
• Social Security reform fizzle due to a plan that had no credibility
• Trying to turn NPR into FoxNews
• Outing a CIA operative while at war
• Being associated with corrupt lobbyists
• Losing their leadership in the House due to corruption charges
• One Republican congressman has already resigned over corruption

Plain and simply, Americans gave Republicans a chance to run the country because -- let's face it -- they sounded confident in their stump speeches. Unfortunately for America, these Republicans have made America look unprepared, incompetent, and weak around the world. They've split the country on the war on terror, and we simply cannot afford that. They've even made their own party shake their heads over their inability to keep government spending under control.

In the end, Republicans have made one too many mistakes to allow them to run the country without some serious oversight. This oversight will come from Democrats.

Sure, Democrats might not yet have a leader for the country, but at least they're smart, competent, and will work hard for the American people to ensure that this Republican administration stays in line for the next 3 years.

Republicans have had one too many, and now it's time to take some responsibility away from them. It's just the responsible thing to do.

Democrats: Rolling out your 2006 Brand

[apologies for the black out... a death in the family (who was an outstanding copy editor for OKR) temporarily put the blog on hold]

Democrats,

As you begin figuring out how to win back the majority in congress in the 2006 elections, Our Karl Rove will be launching a series of overarching, national party messages that are designed to resonate with voters this fall.

The goal of a national party message is not to define each candidate, but rather to create a brand that each candidate can effectively leverage to make them a more compelling alternative.

It's all about transforming "Democrat" from a brand that feels like a radical socialist or welfare recipient into a brand that feels more like responsible, competent, and respectable governance and leadership.

When a strong, meaningful brand has been designed t0 resonate with your target audiences, the brand becomes an effective asset that Democratic candidates can use to link their specific, local positions into something national, where Democrats currently have a brand advantage. From the constituent perspective, voters will intuitively use the brand to save time and energy in assessing what a candidate's specific value proposition is, and get a head start as they look into Democratic candidates' specific personal qualities.

It's a simple two-pronged plan: The national party defines the common themes that are well-researched and politically expedient. Once proven effective, local candidates will refer to and embody these themes as a backdrop for their local positions.

Remember: national party branding should enable your candidates, not disable them. This means divisive issues are a no-no. We need to keep them broad, generally appealing, and flexible enough for all kinds of voters.

Let's get to it.

Branding Republicans

Democrats,

Usually, I spend my spare time worrying about how you brand yourselves. And, why shouldn't I? Your brand stinks. When people think "Democrat," they think of Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, and John Kerry. In other words, propagandists, opportunists, heretics, and flip-floppers, in that order.

But, as Republicans have learned through experience, it's easier to re-brand your foe than yourself in politics. And, what better time to start some baseline Republican re-branding just before the races heat up for the 2006 congressional elections? Let's keep it simple and give the public a bunch of easy one-liners to digest for the first 3 months. Once this base branding has been applied, we can flesh out the popular one-liners and expand in greater detail.

So, let the branding begin:

Republicans -- they spend our savings and tax your children
Republicans -- they think they know foreign policy... but do you
                               think it's working?
Republicans -- they'll bug your phone and track your web
                               searches... feel safe now?
Republicans -- they're not Big Government... they're Huge,
                               Corrupt, In Your Face Government
Republicans -- if they're pro-life, why are they pro-death penalty?
Republicans -- if they're so good at war, why are our troops dying                                every week?
Republicans -- bringing America down, one blunder at a time
Republicans -- the party that was determined to keep Terri
                               Schiavo alive
Republicans -- we gave them all the control, and look what they                                did with it
Republicans -- just when you thought that one party was good
                               enough for America
Republicans -- they need Democrats to keep them in line
Republicans -- over 5,000 American dead on their watch... and
                               counting
Republicans -- they're sure they're right, even when they're dead
                               wrong
Republicans -- five years in control, and there is still no oil-free
                               energy plan?
Republicans -- my tax cut was nice, but it's all going to heat my
                               home and fill up my car
Republicans -- sponsored in part by Abramoff, the corrupt
                               lobbyist
Republicans -- absolute power corrupts absolutely
Republicans -- the party of self destruction in search of weapons of                                mass destruction

Take your pick, mash'em up, or come up with your own. I don't care. But start "beta testing" some one-liners and see what sticks. There is so much crap going on under Republican watch that it's just a matter of coordinated effort to find out what message is going to "click."

Go to it.

A Real State of the Union Response

President Bush's State of the Union Address was actually not so bad as Bush speeches go. He was as patronizing as ever on foreign policy, yet fairly blunt and visionary on domestic initiatives. The overall flavor was definitely conciliatory, designed specifically to appeal to voters who have switched off this administration as an ideological bully, out of control.

Democrats need to blunt this instrument of moderation, quickly. It's not enough to simply follow the polls and say "hey, the speech really didn't give him a significant bump," and just move on. The speech needs to be debunked, point by point, over and over. Why? Because Democrats need to nationalize the 2006 elections if you have any chance of winning back majority status.

On being isolationists:

"The only thing that is isolated here is the President of the United States. He has isolated America in our war on terror because of his Iraq Mistake."

On Iraq:

"Republicans have somehow turned the War on Terror into a Civil War in Iraq. Can we really trust this party to lead us to victory, when they have not yet caught Bin Laden, and instead are getting our men and women killed in an insurgency in Iraq? Iraqi insurgents can't attack America -- but we know Bin Laden can."

On Iran:

"This administration has let the real dangers -- Iran and North Korea -- get out of hand, while getting caught up in a Civil War in Iraq, which had no ability to harm us. This administration is responsible for the priorities they set, and they are to be held to account for their wrong-headed decisions."

On Russia:

"This administration has let Iraq distract America from serious security concerns, including nuclear weapons in Russia, combined with allowing Russia to turn their backs on democracy. How can this President talk about democracy around the world and let one of our allies fall back into a dictatorship?"

On the economy:

"The President talks about all the great jobs he's created. Have you seen them? The only jobs I see growing are low paying jobs. Republicans have let China invade our economy and strengthened our reliance on China for our economy."

On American innovation:

"We completely agree with the President on innovation being the cornerstone of the American economy and American dream. The difference here is that Democrats have a history of strategically using tax dollars to foster new ideas and innovations that have led to economic breakthroughs over the past century. The Republicans on the other hand, are more focused on sending the nation into debt so that we end up spending our money on interest payments instead of the Next Big Thing that will keep America's economy strong."

On oil:

"Democrats have seen the so-called oil addiction problem decades ago, and we have consistently implemented policies to reduce our reliance on foreign energy. Put Democrats back in the majority, and you can be assured that this promise is not just lip-service, but acted on."

On Social Security:

"We applauded the President's failure to destroy Social Security because it's clear that Americans want Social Security. You know and trust that Democrats will fix Social Security and not destroy it. We like personal accounts, but we like them like we like 401ks. 401ks didn't destroy Social Security, and neither should personal spending accounts."

On marriage:

"As you know, Democrats differ from Republicans in that we want to maximize individual freedoms. Republicans seem interested in limiting all kinds of freedoms, including who you can marry, and even when Terri Schiavo could die. We believe that Americans are moral, good people, and we see no need to legislate personal freedoms."

On spreading democracy abroad:

"We agree with the President that democracy and freedom is a human right that all people deserve. Where we don't agree with the President is how to attain and grow democracies. We just don't agree that bombing and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi bystanders is the right way to sway them into a democracy. We do not believe that telling all moderate Iranians to stay home on election day is the right way grow democracies. And we do not believe that watching Russia shut down its democratic systems is a way of growing democracies. So, while we agree with the President that democracy is good, all we see is failures in his ability to execute on this worthwhile goal."

Attacking the "Privacy-Gate" Road Show

Democrats,

The President, in trademark Rovian fashion, is taking an issue he's weak on and going on the attack to defend it. The thinking is (as it has for the past 5 years): turn any weakness into a strength by believing that your weakness is indeed a strength.

Don't let this tactic work again. Don't react in the traditional way, because this entire strategy is based on a traditional response. And, need I remind you... it has not worked.

After Bush starts giving his speeches across the nation, explaining how he is just doing what he needs to do to protect us from terrorists, you need to come out strong, loud, and untraditionally:

"The President is spending a week of his time trying to sell America on the fact that he needs to protect us. I can't think of a bigger waste of time for a President who is overseeing a long-term, costly war and picking up the pieces after his Katrina fiasco. Why? Because every American already agrees that we need the government to use the tools it has at its disposal to protect Americans from future terror attacks. Mr. President, you can go home now and work on the war and Katrina fiasco... we all agree with you. What Americans are concerned about, Mr. President, is that you have apparently decided that you are allowed to act like King George, not President Bush, because Kings don't need no stinkin' courts -- they just rule. Americans have given you a lot of slack in the war on terror, but no American wants a King, Mr. President. So, if you want to talk about changing your Constitutional role in our government, be my guest. Let's debate that this week."

"The President is obviously, once again, confused and in a bubble: the debate isn't about whether or not to use our intelligence tools to outmaneuver terrorists, the problem is that Americans expect our Presidents to follow the law, or challenge congress to change the law if the laws aren't good enough. Isn't that what the PATRIOT ACT was all about? If the President doesn't need to follow the law or the constitution, then why even bother renewing the PATRIOT ACT next month? Legal scholars from all parties agree that this President has overreached in his executive power, and it's time for him to stand down and promise court reviews of federal eavesdropping. Remember: this is about the President not even wanting to tell the courts after he eavesdrops."

"The President is trying to make this a choice for Americans: either he is above the law or you are not safe. This is utter crap. Americans deserve better than this so-called "choice." If we're not going to follow our Constitution, why should Iraqi leaders follow theirs? If we're going to hand over our democracy because of fear of terrorists, then have they already won? We must not let the terrorist win. Therefore, we must keep to our Democratic values and require court oversight for every eavesdropping initiative, as it is stated in our laws. If the laws need adjusting, then adjust them, Mr. President. Why aren't they in the PATRIOT ACT anyway, Mr. President? What laws are you bound by, Mr. President?"

Debating "Privacy-Gate"

Democrats,

You're letting the Republicans, once again, define and debate the "Privacy-Gate" scandal on the White House's terms. Stop it. This administration liberally interprets the U.S. Constitution to suit their unbridled expansion of executive power, and lies to the American people saying that they don't wiretap without court approval. There is no parsing of this that doesn't implicate this administration of abusing power to the point of Constitutional Corruption.

The Democrats I've heard trotted out to fight this battle have been pretty lame -- they are being sucked into the debate of "what would you do to protect Americans from terrorists, hmm?" This is not the debate. The debate is whether Americans will or will not trade in our Democracy to overcome our enemies. Don't get caught up in the Republican-devised faux-debate. Ignore their attempts, and re-focus on the matter at hand.

Some talking points to roll out:

• This President says he's spying on you to protect you. Just let that sink in.
• The President says he knows he's acting within the laws and the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this President has said something that is patently false.
• If spying on Americans without due process is part of this administration's strategy to win the war on terror, then we clearly need a new strategy and new leadership, because now it sounds like we're losing.
• This administration has now admitted that they are, in fact, losing the war on terror. Democrats believe winning the war on terror means more than just being at war forever -- we're only winning if we're not trading in our standard of living and democratic values.
• Spying on Americans without due process is about as un-American as it gets.
• If the President of the United States doesn't respect our system of government enough to follow the laws, then he should resign.
• How many impeachable offenses and abuses of power are we going to stand by and watch until we decide enough is enough with this President?

Notice how none of these talking points dive down into the nitty gritty details of what is -- and what is not -- legal, constitutional, moral, and the like. This is by design, and is a contextual augment. If you want to create a groundswell of support for your position, best not to get mired in the details. Keep it at an executive, contextual level, with your integrity and moral indignation as the topic.

Don't get me wrong - you definitely need to know the details to give you the authority and integrity to justify your moral indignation. But just because you know the details doesn't mean you need to communicate them to the general public as part of your message.

Facts are much less important until they have proper context, so focus on how low this administration is willing to go in order to "win" - and portray it as a sign of weakness. After all, everyone knows that if you're willing to give up your values in a fight, you've already lost.

Democrats: Put Up a Gate, Quick

Democratic Leadership,

Timing is critical here: Bush has just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar: He has apparently been giving the NSA (and FBI) permission to spy on American citizens in his quest for dictator-like powers of the presidency. Russ Feingold did a brilliant job on the immediate smack down. It helped set the tone for the first day’s debate, but you need a more powerful follow-up strategy before you lose traction.

First, you have to turn this into a "gate." Americans have been conditioned to only think of a political crisis when there's a “gate” attached to the allegations. Don’t worry about being seen as petty using this approach, the Republicans created a "gate" for Clinton's haircuts, for crying out loud. The fact that I remember this almost 10 years later tells you how effective "gate"ing can be.

Some ideas for naming your gate:

• Spy-Gate
• NSA-Gate
• Emperor-Gate
• Privacy-Gate

Privacy-Gate is my favorite of the bunch (thanks to Orin for that one). It is crucial that we get this "gate" thing into the national dialog quickly. In fact, if you don’t "gate" this one, then you're really not doing all you can do to involve the public in this critical debate over Americans' fundamental right to privacy from their government.

Second, you need to try Bush in the Court of Public Opinion. You won’t even get a trial covered by the media unless it's a "gate," but once you're there, you need to win.

Some talking points in making the case against Bush:

• This isn't Big Government, this is Intrusive Government. If you thought the Republican Party was about getting the government out of your hair, you might want to reconsider the party you support. This Republican administration has decided that it has every right to learn everything it can about any American, at any time.
• These aren't the actions of an American President, these are the actions of a Dictator. Dictators do as they want and as they say, with no oversight, always in the name of national defense and keeping the country safe.
• With all this talk about Bush's judicial appointees being strict constitutional constructionists, how is it that Bush all of a sudden wants to conveniently interpret the executive power given to the office of the President?
• How sad it is for this administration that we are now left to compare President Bush with President Nixon. Both Presidents similarly abused the benefit of the doubt – and the deep trust – that Americans give our Presidents. Our trust has been abused and misused.
• This is not just about civil liberties – this is about an administration that is just out of control with its power. I think President Bush has overreached for the last time.

Once you've "gated" the crisis, and sold your perspective on it to the media and he public, you have then set the stage to start calling for impeachment.

Warning: Do not overreach! Do not add in accusations that may or may not be illegal, and do not pepper your accusations with partisan or philosophical banter. This is clean and simple, and impeachment is about specifics, not general admonishment:

If the man broke the law, then he is impeachable based on the law he broke.

Now, if there is a list of impeachable offenses (like Representative John Conyers has compiled) that are simple and clear as that of Privacy-Gate, then by all means, pile 'em on. But, please, please do not add any color or opinion to your call for impeachment. Keep it very simple:

"If President Bush is found to have abused his office by secretly spying on American citizens, then he should be impeached. We will find out the facts, and we will determine next steps when the facts have been reviewed."

If you can't find the venom in you right now, try recalling how Republicans spent all of their time in the 1990's trying to undermine the Clinton presidency with "Whitewater-gate."