Poll: majority of Dems say "Dems have no Iraq strategy"

[welshTerrier2]

one thing's for sure, the Lamont-Lieberman primary has most Democrats reflecting on the state of our party ... it's clear that mainstream Democrats want their elected leaders to take a much stronger stand against the war and it's also clear that mainstream Democrats want their leaders to take a much stronger stand against bush ...

a recent WP-ABC poll shows that a majority of Democrats do not believe that Democrats even have an Iraq strategy ... some analysts, including pollster John Zogby, have concluded that this "non-position" on Iraq hurt the party in 2004 and that it MAY hurt the party again this year ... one might even argue that, regardless of the politics, Democrats need to chart a much bolder course in Iraq because it's the right thing to do ...

this year, many consider the war to be THE ISSUE ... and yet, within the Democratic Party itself, a majority are not finding any representation for their beliefs ... that is a very tragic failure of leadership ... we have a right to expect our party to represent us ... and voters appear to be in an increasingly angry mood ... the good news is that Democrats are faring much better than republicans; the bad news is that there is a growing anti-incumbency feeling that will affect Democrats as well as republicans ...

Democrats are demanding meaningful change, sharper definitions of policy and more responsive representation; right now, although the party is beating republicans, their report card is nevertheless not very good ... Democrats want their party to win but they may be unwilling to heavily invest in helping it win if they don't start seeing and hearing a bolder Democratic vision ...

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/07/AR2006080701120_pf.html

At the same time, the poll's findings underline the challenge for Democrats. For all their disenchantment, most voters are not sure what the party stands for. Just 48 percent say Democrats offer a clear direction different from Republicans, while 47 percent say they do not. The public does not think that Bush or the Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq. Even a slight majority of Democrats say their party does not have an Iraq strategy.

The problem for Democratic candidates such as Lieberman who continue to support the war seems even plainer. Strategists wonder how many Democratic voters, like those backing Lieberman's challenger, Ned Lamont, feel so strongly about the issue that will be willing to punish one of their own who strays. "It was a problem in 2004, and it's going to be a bigger problem in 2006 if you're a Democrat who's seen as an accommodationist or a capitulationist," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic consultant.

What Democrats have to do, he said, is emphasize a break from Bush's direction in Iraq, even if they disagree about how. Among voters across the board, 38 percent say they are more likely to oppose candidates who support Bush on Iraq compared with 23 percent who are more likely to support them. "On the big question -- 'Should we stay the course or should we make a change?' -- it seems overwhelmingly the public wants a change," Mellman said.

[leesa]

1. Well, we are working to get rid of the DINOs who are deliberately

fogging the issue to help out the GOP and the war.

[TayTay]

2. The public is also a little murky on what they want

from the same article cited above:

Eighty-one percent of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting, and 70 percent feel that way "strongly." A majority of Democrats, 54 percent, say a candidate endorsing Bush's Iraq policy would be less likely to get their vote, compared with 37 percent for whom it would not make much difference. Two in three Democrats say it is time to begin decreasing troop levels in Iraq, although only one in four supports immediate withdrawal.

The public doesn't like the war, wants something done to disentangle us from it, but isn't sure what. This is also telling. It will be very interesting to see if public opinion on the actual options shifts as Nov gets closer. (What are the options available anyway; Stay the same, which is what the Bush Admin wants; gradual withdrawal without any real end date; or a withdrawal with a hard end date. What other options have been put forth? The Dems also sprinkle their proposals with very hearty doses of diplomacy and the need to get other world interests involved in the negotiation process. The public wasn't polled on whether or not that is a distinct adjunct to Dem positions and holds any influence on them.)