| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Wealth of Nations: In Europe, Governments On One Side, Voters On the Other (February 25, 2003) Tony Blair's backing of Bush is proving to be a much bigger political gamble than he ever imagined. By Clive Crook. Media: A Soft, Cracking Sound (February 25, 2003) The selling of war with Iraq is not going as well as the White House wants us to believe. By William Powers. Legal Affairs: How Civil-Libertarian Hysteria May Endanger Us All (February 25, 2003) Congress was stunningly irresponsible in hobbling a program aimed at catching terrorists. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Media: The Poodle Speaks (February 19, 2003) Foreign critics are barking up the wrong tree when they complain about U.S. news media coverage of Iraq. By William Powers. Social Studies: America Can Beat Iraq. But Can It Vanquish France? (February 19, 2003) There's nothing new about France's self-defeating line. What is new is that the administration isn't buying it. By Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: Perverting the Legal System: The Lead-Paint Rip-Off (February 19, 2003) No victim of lead poisoning will get a dime in compensation from Rhode Island's pending lawsuit. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Political Pulse: The Cowboy and the Diplomat (February 19, 2003) Together, Bush and Powell bring leadership and legitimacy to the U.S. policy on Iraq. By William Schneider. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
From 'Yes, But' to 'We Told You So'?If a war with Iraq were to go badly, top Democrats could point out they'd had qualms by William Schneider .... What with the war talk and the terror alert, nobody's paying much attention to the Democrats right now. But listening to them might be a good idea, because sooner or later they may get the chance to say, "We told you so." The Democrats' position on war with Iraq is, "Yes, but." Yes, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said on February 6, "I think [President Bush] is doing the right thing now with respect to Iraq." But, he added, the United States needs to have others on board. "There is a difference between announcing to the world, 'This is what we're going to do; you can come with us or not,' and leading in a way that brings others with us," Edwards declared. "That's the fundamental difference between George W. Bush and John Edwards." Yes, said Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., when confronted by anti-war protesters in Boston. "I understand their agony over the way this administration has brought us to this point," the former spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War said. "That doesn't reduce the legitimacy of the concern over weapons of mass destruction." But, what's the rush? "Show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition, Mr. President," Kerry advised. "Do not rush to war." Yes, said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., enough is enough. "We've tried just about everything—political isolation, diplomatic initiatives, economic sanctions, U.N. inspections, and limited military strikes to get Saddam to disarm. And none of it has worked," Lieberman said after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's testimony to the United Nations on February 5. But we shouldn't stop trying, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the same day. "It behooves us to exhaust every diplomatic and disarmament remedy that we can before we put our young people in harm's way," she maintained. There's a reason Democratic leaders are saying "Yes, but." In a Gallup Poll taken from February 7 to 9, a majority of Republicans spoke with one voice: 59 percent favored invading Iraq, even without a U.N. vote authorizing the use of force. Democrats, by contrast, were all over the place. A plurality (38 percent) said the United States should invade only if the United Nations authorizes it. Only 27 percent thought the United States should invade Iraq even without a U.N. mandate. Another 29 percent of Democrats just said no to invasion. Do any Democratic presidential contenders just say no? At least one does. "I'm the only person running for president who did not support the Iraq resolution, because I thought the president hadn't made his case," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said. If a U.S. invasion ends badly—or if terrorist reprisals occur—a massive anti-war reaction among Democrats could suddenly make Dean the man of the hour. He's the Democrat who could say, most clearly, "I told you so." On the president's economic plan, Democrats do speak with one voice. What they say is no. "I don't know that there is any other word for this budget than the word 'reckless,' " said Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D. Under President Clinton, Democrats got religion on the issue of fiscal responsibility. "If you want fiscal responsibility and social progress, elect a Democrat," Dean argues. Democrats were outraged when President Bush said, in his State of the Union speech last month, "We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations." "That's exactly what he's doing," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., complained. "He's bucking these massive deficits, these massive debts, to our kids." Democrats concerned about deficits? That's laughable, say Republicans. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., said, "The Democrats were never concerned about deficits when it comes to spending, only when it comes to tax cuts." What's really funny is that many conservatives have decided that deficits are not really a problem, because they force Democrats to hold down spending. "Anything that will help us stop spending money, I'm in favor of.... And if there's a deficit, that may help us," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., chairwoman of the Republican Study Committee, told The New York Times. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan threw cold water on that argument last week: "There is no question that when deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy." Two years ago, another Greenspan utterance proved to be fateful. "Having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good," the Fed chairman testified in January 2001. With that, Bush got his first tax cut. Now Bush is proposing an even bigger tax cut. What does the Greenspan oracle have to say? "I do believe it should be revenue-neutral." Aha! The president's tax cut has to be paid for if the deficit is to be kept under control. Democrats are gleeful. "Alan Greenspan two years ago breathed life into the administration's proposal for a tax cut," Daschle said last week. "Today, I think he gave the kiss of death to the plan that was offered this year." Will Republicans end up paying a political price for the deficit? President Reagan didn't. But President George H.W. Bush did. Here's the rule: The deficit becomes an issue if the economy is bad. Then Democrats can say, "We told you so."
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | [an error occurred while processing this directive] | ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
