Lack of specific exit plan may not be election liability for Democrats

[Contrary1]

No Iraq deadline. No problem

"WASHINGTON - Here’s a question as we plunge into the final 80 days of the campaign: what are the “anti-war Democrats” who are running for Congress telling voters about how they’d go about withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

But here’s a more pertinent question: does it even matter what Democratic candidates tell voters about their plans for withdrawal?

Could the Democrats gain control of Congress this Nov. 7 by simply being the generic “anti-Iraq war” party and not getting too specific about what that means? The lack of a specific exit date from most Democratic candidates should be no surprise.

In most of the landmark elections which took place in non-presidential election years — the Democratic triumphs in 1958 and 1986, for instance — the winning party did not offer a bullet-point list of promises or a “Contract with America.”

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14365222/

[rocktivity]

1. I think that's more than fair

After all, the lack of a specific exit plan may hasn't proven to be an election liability for the REPUBLICANS!

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[gratuitous]

2. Why doesn't MSNBC know about Democratic plans?

After all, Wesley Clark and Jonathan Edwards haven't exactly been shy about telling crowds all over the country what they think the U.S. should do.

Or is that the problem? After all, MSNBC doesn't seem to know anything unless it comes to them from the RNC fax machine. Hey, millionaire reporters! Why don't you try, you know, reporting instead of just reading what the Republicans are saying?

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Having a specific exit plan may, in fact, be a liability

A specific plan could be shot through with holes from any specious argument. Saying, instead, that the situation is evolving (badly) day after day is a better way to frame it, imho. Any 'plan' out to be dependent on the reality on the ground, not what sells in an election speech.